PRELIMINARY  STUDY  OF  FAI'iiLY  RESEMBLANCE 
IN  HAMDWITING 
BY 


J.  E.  DOWNEY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  WYOMING 

DEPARTMENT  OF  PSYCHOLOGY 

BULLETIN  No.  I. 


Preliminary  Study 
of  Family  Resemblance 
in  Handwriting 


By  JUNE  E.  DOWNEY 

PROFESSOR  OF  PSYCHOLOGY,  UNIVERSITY  OF  WYOMING 


UNIVERSITY  OF  WYOMING 


DEPARTMENT  OF  PSYCHOLOGY 

BULLETIN  NO.  1 


PRELIMINARY  STUDY 
OF  FAMILY  RESEMBLANCE 
IN  HANDWRITING 


BY 

JUNE  E.  I^WNEY 

Professor  of  Psychology,  Universify  of  Wyoming 


Laramie.  Wyoming  ; 

The  Laramie  Republican  Company. 
Printers  and  Binders. 

1910 


/ 


f 


■ft 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


I  -  . 


Page 

I.  Human  Inheritance  .  5 

I.  Methods  of  Investigation... 

a.  Descriptive  . \ 

b.  Statistical  . 

c.  Analytical  .  8 

II.  The  Inheritance  of  Handwriting . ii 

1.  Historical  Orientation  . ii 

2.  Causes  of  Resemblance  in  Handwriting  other  than  Inherit¬ 

ance  . 12 

HI.  Experimental  Investigation  . 13 

1.  Material  . .' . 13 

2.  Method  . 14 

3.  The  Subjective  Element  in  Judgments  on  Handwriting  Re¬ 

semblances  . 15 

a.  Collection  D  . 15 

b.  Collection  A  . 16 

c.  Results  of  Test  with  Tables . 18 

4.  X'arying  Ability  of  Individuals  in  Determination  of  Hand¬ 

writing  Resemblances . 20 

5.  Degrees  of  Resemblance . 25 

a.  Collection  D  . 25 

b.  Collection  A  . 32 

c.  Collection  H  . 37 

d.  Collection  L  . 43 


IV.  General  Conclusion 


49 


^  VO  VO 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/preliminarystudy01down 


Preliminary  Study 


OF 

Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting 


I.  HUMAN  INHERITANCE. 

In  the  biological  discussion  of  heredity,  attention  has  been  concen¬ 
trated  largely  upon  non-human  inheritance,  data  for  the  study  of  which  have 
been  gathered  from  observation  of  plant  and  animal  life.  Little  attention 
has  been  given  to  the  problem  of  human  inheritance.  The  former  problem, 
so  much  less  complicated  than  the  latter,  and  of  such  great  practical 
importance  in  the  breeding  of  animals,  is  open  to  direct  observation  in  a 
few  or  many  generations  and  in  certain  aspects  lends  itself  so  readily  to 
experimentation  that  it  is  little  wonder  that  work  should  have  commenced 
here  rather  than  with  human  inheritance. 

None  the  less,  popular  interest  in  the  resemblance  between  the  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  same  family  has  always  been  great.  Literature,  history  and 
anecdote  have  preserved  a  certain  amount  of  material  that  has  attracted 
attention.  Moreover,  modern  work  in  scientific  sociology  has  brought  to 
realization  the  immense  importance  of  an  understanding  of  the  laws  of 
human  inheritance  if  society  is  ever  to  succeed  in  solving  certain  pressing 
difficulties.  The  adoption  of  proper  social  regulations,  not  to  speak  of 
educational  ideals,  must  depend  upon  an  accurate  understanding  of  the 
relation  between  character  and  inheritance  and  character  and  environment. 
The  effects  of  inbreeding  and  the  possible  inheritance  of  disease  must  be 
determined  by  an  understanding  of  the  laws  of  heredity.  The  modern 
movement  of  Eugenics  seeks  definitely  to  arouse  the  public  conscience  as 
to  the  importance  of  cultivating  and  elevating  the  human  breed  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  generalizations  of  science.  The  movement  points  a  growing 
interest  of  the  times. 

A  brief  rdsumd  of  the  methods  employed  in  the  study  of  human 
inheritance  may  be  of  value.  First  of  all,  a  distinction  must  be  drawn  be¬ 
tween  physical  inheritance  and  mental  and  moral  inheritance.  The  first 
would  deal  with  such  details  of  the  physical  make-up  as  stature,  color  of 
hair  and  eyes,  cephalic  index  and  the  like.  The  latter  would  be  concerned 
with  such  mental  characteristics  as  musical  capacity,  memory,  power  of 
reasoning  and  such  moral  traits  as  generosity  and  industry.  Of  course,  in 
a  comprehensive  research  a  further  attempt  would  be  made,  namely,  to 
correlate  physical  and  mental  inheritance,  to  show,  for  example,  that 
delicacy  in  tactile  discrimination — a  mental  trait — accompanied  great  flex¬ 
ibility  of  the  hand — a  physical  trait. 

Research  in  human  inheritance  offers,  as  has  been  previously  sug¬ 
gested,  great  difficulties,  the  principal  one  being  the  difficulty  of  obtaining 
accurate  data  covering  more  than  two  or  three  generations.  Such  a  diffi¬ 
culty  can,  of  course,  be  overcome  by  the  keeping  of  records  for  future  use. 
Again,  this  difficulty  may  be  overcome  to  a  certain  extent  by  the  applica¬ 
tion  of  the  methods  of  statistics  to  a  large  number  of  persons  and  the 
attempt  to  deal  with  fraternal  resemblance  rather  than  with  paternal  resem- 


0 


Family  Rksicmulance  in  Handwriting. 


hlancc.  The  second  difficulty  is  that  of  determining  human  traits  which 
permit  accurate  measurement.  This  second  difficulty  is  much  less  insistent 
in  dealing  with  physical  than  with  mental  inheritance  and,  accordingly,  we 
have  excellent  studies  on  the  laws  governing  the  inheritance  of  stature,  eye- 
color,  and  other  physical  traits, 'while  accurate  studies  upon  the  inheritance 
of  mental  and  moral  traits  are  still  lacking,  although  the  ground  has  been 
hroken.  IMoreover,  the  development  by  quantitative  psychology  of  methods 
of  mental  mensuration  is  very  encouraging. 

i.  Mcthdds  of  Ini'cstigation.  •  ,  . 

Before  a  detailed  discussion  of  the  methods  of  study  of  human  resem¬ 
blances  is  given,  those  methods  may  be  roughly  described  as  descriptive, 
statistical,  and  analytical. 

(a)  the  descriptive  method. 

The  earlier  treatments  of  the  subject  of  human  inheritance  were  largely 
descriptive.  Such  a  treatment,  for  example,  is  found  in  Ribot’s  book 
entitled  ‘‘Heredity"  (i6),  the  first  edition  of  which  was  published  in 
1873.  The  author’s  purpose  was  to  gather  from  history  and  scientific 
reports  instances  showing  the  transmission  of  some  trait  or  other.  The 
whole  range  of  mental  characteristics  is  covered  from  inheritance  of  sen¬ 
sorial  qualities,  such  as  undue  sensitivity  to  tickling,  to  the  inheritance  of 
artistic  and  volitional  aptitudes.  This  descriptive  treatment  is  supplemented 
by  what  Ribot  calls  the  “Laws  of  Heredity,”  including  (i  )  Direct  Heredity, 
where  the  child  takes  equally  after  both  its  parents  (blended  inberitance) 
or,  as  is  more  frequently  the  case,  where  it  resembles  more  specifically 
one  of  the  two  parents,  which  results  at  times  in  cross-heredity,  in  which 
the  son  resembles  the  mother  and  the  daughter  the  father;  (2)  Reversional 
Heredity  or  Atavism,  which  occurs  frequently  between  grandfather  and 
grandson,  grandmother  and  granddaughter;  and  (3)  Collateral,  or  Indirect, 
Hefedity,  which  consists  in  resemblance  between  individuals  and  their 
ancestors  in  the  indirect  line.  Ribot  also  considers  apparent  exceptions 
to  the  laws  of  heredity  in  relation  to  the  so-called  “Law  of  Spontaneity.” 

(b)  the  statistical  method. 

The  application  of  the  statistical  method  in  the  study  of,  human  inherit-, 
ance  was  first  attempted  by  Gabon  in  the  ’6o’s. 

Gabon  was  interested  in  establishing,  in  his  book  entitled  “Hereditary 
Genius”  (8),  a  standard  scale  of  human  ability.  To  do  this,  he  made  use 
of  the  well-known  Law  of  Error,  or  Deviation  from  the  Average,  a  law 
which  states  that  deviations  center  about  a  mid-point  and  are  equal  in  num¬ 
ber  above  and  below  the  mean.  By  careful  analysis  of  biographical  data, 
Gabon  estimated  the  number  of  “eminent”  men  at  a  given  time  to  be  as 
250  in  a  million,  or  as  one  to  four  thousand.  The  “illustrious”  men  would, 
be  still  more  rigidly  selected  as  one  to  a  million  or  to  many  millions.  Work¬ 
ing  downward,  Gabon  obtained  his  measure  of  mediocre  or  average  ability, 
below  which  he  determined  a  descending  scale  corresponding  to  the  ascend¬ 
ing  one  and  ending  with  idiots,  about  280  to  a  million.  Gabon  argued  that 
if  it  should  be  found  that  “eminent”  or  “illustrious”  men  are  clustered  in 
families,  the  conclusion  would  be  that  ability  is  hereditary  in  these  families. 
Such  a  conclusion  Gabon  reaches  after  a  detailed  study  of  the  families  of 
English  Judges,  the  families  of  Statesmen,  Commanders,  Literary  Men, 
Men  of  Science,  Poets,  Musicians,  Painters,  and  Divines.  He  says  further; 
“The  general  uniformity  in  the  distribution  of  ability  among  the  kinsmen 
in  the  different  groups  is  strikingly  manifest.  The  eminent  sons  are  almost 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting.  7 

invariably  more  numerous  than  the  eminent  brothers,  and  these  a  trifle  more 
numerous  than  the  eminent  fathers.  *  *  *  We  come  to  a  sudden  drop¬ 

ping  off  of  the  numbers  at  the  second  grade  of  kinship,  namely,  at  the 
grandfathers,  uncles,  nephews,  and  grandsons.  *  *  *  On  reaching  the 

third  grade  of  kinship,  another  abrupt  dropping  off  in  numbers  is  again 
met  with,  but  the  first  cousins  are  found  to  occupy  a  decidedly  better  posi¬ 
tion  than  the  other  relations  within  the  third  degree.”  (8:309.) 

Galton’s  studies  were  continued  in  “Natural  Inheritance”  (10).  He 
worked  out  in  further  detail  the  Law  of  Deviation  from  the.  Average  and 
applied  it  specifically  in  a  discussion  of  resemblances  among  related  persons 
in  stature,  eye  color,  artistic  faculty,  and  disease.  A  detailed  application 
was  found  to  necessitate  a  transmutation  of  female  into  male  measures  in 
order  to  determine  the  position  of  the  mid-parent.  Galton  distinguishes 
between  the  parental  center  and  the  racial  center,  from  both  of  which 
variations  occur  in  both  directions  and  works  out  his  law  of  regression. 
“Kach  peculiarity  in  a  man  is  shared  by  his  kinsmen,  but  on  the  ctver- 
age  in  a  less  degree.  *  "  This  apparent  paradox  is  fundamentally 

due  to  the  greater  frequency  of  mediocre  deviations  than  of  extreme  ones, 
occurring  between  limits  separated  by  equal  widths.”  (to:  194.) 

In  general,  Gabon’s  name  is  associated  with  the  so-called  “Law  of  the 
Average  Contribution  of  each  separate  Ancestor  to  the  Total  Inheritance 
of  the  Offspring.”  Put  briefly,  this  law  states  that  the  parents  each  con¬ 
tribute  one-fourth  to  the  inheritance  of  an  individual,  the  grandparents 
one-sixteenth  each,  the  great-grandparent  one-sixty-fourth,  ancl  so  on  in  , an 
infinite  series. 

The  statistical  method  has  been  still  further  developed  by  Karl  Pearson. 
The  Huxley  lecture,  delivered  b)^  him  in  1903,  was  entitled,  “On  the  Inherit¬ 
ance  of  IMental  and  Moral  Characters  in  Man  and  Its  Comparison  with 
the  Inheritance  of  the  Physical  Characters”,  (15).  In  this  investigation 
Pearson  confined  himself  to  fraternal  resemblance  because  of  the  ease  with 
which  material  could  be  collected  under  such  conditions.  From  800  to 
1,000  pairs  of  brothers  and  sisters  were  classed  by  teachers  under  Pear¬ 
son's  directions.  The  mental  characters,  selected  for  measurement  were 
general  ability,  vivacity,  assertiveness,  introspection,  popularity,  conscien¬ 
tiousness,  temper,  and  handwriting.  The  following  conclusions  were drawn  : 
“The  phvsical  and  psychical  characters  in  man  are  inherited  within  broad 
lines  in  the  same  manner,  and  with  the  same  intensity”  ( 15:204).  Again, 
“Ry  assuming  our  normal  distribution  for  the  psychical  characters  we  have 
found,  not  only  self-consistent  results — linear  regression,  for  example,  ,  as 
in  the  case  of  inheritance  of  intelligence,  but  we  have  found  the  same 
degree  of  resemblance  between  physical  and  psychical  characters.  That 
sameness  involves  something  additional.  It  involves  a  like  heritage 
from  parents"  (15:204).  The  fraternal  and  paternal  resemblance  is 
found  roughly  to  be  about  .5  for  both  physical  and  psychical  charac¬ 
ters.  Pearson  warns  the  reader  that  the  (luantitative  results  so  obtained 
apply  only  to  the  averages  of  a  large  number,  not  to  individual  cases. 

Thorndike  has  carried  out  a  similar  investigation  upon  fifty  pairs 
of  twins  (19).  He  found  the  resemblance  of  twins  in  the  traits  studied 
to  be  approximately  .80  or  .75  to  .80  in  amount,  a  much  stronger  resem¬ 
blance  than  he  found  to  exist  between  pairs  of  brothers  and  sisters  who 
were  not  twins. 

The  attempt  to  work  out,  quantitatively,  coefficients  expressing  the 
resemblance  for  different  degrees  of  kinship  is  closely  related  in  the 
methods  used  to  Correlational  Psychology,  which  seeks  to  determine  the 
coefficient  of  correlation  between  dift’erent  mental  traits  in  the  same  indi¬ 
vidual,  the  correlation,  for  example,  between  all  forms  of  Sensory  Discrim¬ 
ination  and  General  Intelligence.  The  requirements  of  a  good  method  for 


S  Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 

such  work  and  criticisms  on  much  of  the  earlier  investigation  because  of 
failure  to  reach  precise  quantitative  expression  are  given  by  Spearman 
(i8).  Spearman's  criticism  holds,  likewise,  but  to  a  lesser  degree,  for 
some  of  the  correlation  coefficients  that  have  been  established  in  the  study 
of  human  inheritance. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  attempts  to  deal  with  human  inheritance 
is  that  of  Woods  in  his  recent  book,  “Mental  and  Moral  Heredity  in  Roy¬ 
alty"  (21).  The  author  conducted  his  investigation  with  such  fundamental 
questions  in  mind  as  the  part  played  by  heredity  and  environment  in  deter¬ 
mination  of  mental  and  moral  characteristics,  the  effect  of  inbreeding,  the 
relation  of  genius  to  insanity  and  sterility. 

In  dealing  with  large  averages.  Woods  accepts  Gabon’s  Law  of  the 
Average  Contribution  of  each  Separate  Ancestor  to  the  Total  Inheritance 
of  the  Offspring  in  order  to  compare  facts  concerning  a  large  number  of 
individuals  of  known  pedigrees  with  the  expectations  arising  from  heredity. 
Should  the  expectations  be  confirmed,  the  conclusion  must  be  drawn  that 
mental  and  moral  characters  are  the  outcome  of  heredity  rather  than  of 
environment  or  free  will.  Woods’  conclusion  is  that  to  a  startling  extent 
the  facts  found  are  those  which  heredity  would  lead  us  to  expect.  He 
finds,  however,  “that  both  mental  and  moral  qualities  more  often  than  other¬ 
wise  do  not  thoroughly  blend,  but  give  us  many  examples  of  at  least 
partial  alternative  inheritance’’  (21  :  274)  in  consequence  of  which  “a  child 
is  apt  to  ‘take  after'  rather  completely  one  of  his  ancestors,  more  often 
the  near  one,  less  and  less  often  the  remote  one,  until  the  chances  of  rever¬ 
sion  to  a  very  distant  one  are  exceedingly  slight.”  *  *  *  “Once  in  a 
large  number  of  times  occurs  one  of  those  fortuitous  combinations  of  ances¬ 
tral  qualities  that  is  destined  to  make  a  person  inheriting  them  vary  much 
from  anv  of  kin,  and  in  fortunate  instances  shine  as  a  genius  springing 
from  a  mediocre  stock”  (21:298  f.). 

Woods  has  been  unable  to  detect  the  existence  of  “dominant”  or 
“recessive”  types,  although  his  method  of  research  is  more  analytical  than 
is  the  usual  statistical  investigation. 

To  avoid  error  arising  from  unconscious  preference  in  the  choice  of 
cases.  Woods  chose  individuals  merely  by  blood  relationship  and  com¬ 
piled  practically  complete  records  of  pedigrees.  The  possibility  of  obtain¬ 
ing  such  complete  records  is  almost  confined  to  royal  families,  which  ac¬ 
counts  for  Woods’  selection  of  material.  Furthermore,  it  is  not  difficult 
to  obtain  historical  estimates  of  the  mental  and  moral  characteristics  of 
royalties.  In  making  such  estimates.  Woods  adopted  a  system  of  grading 
from  (i)  the  lowest,  to  (10)  the  highest,  a  grading  being  made  separately 
for  intellectual  and  for  moral  characteristics.  The  Law  of  Deviation  from 
an  Average  was  utilized  also.  In  all,  832  characters  were  studied. 

Woods’  conclusion  is  that  environment  is  a  totally  inadequate  explana¬ 
tion  of  the  intellectual  life.  He  shows  that,  on  the  whole,  maximum  fertility 
is  found  with  general  superiority ;  that  neither  luxury  nor  frequent  inter¬ 
marriages  produce  degeneracy ;  that  there  is  a  slight  relationship  between 
genius  and  insanity.  Woods  also  made  an  attempt  to  correlate  mental 
ability  with  moral  worth,  probably  the  first  attempt  that  has  been  made. 
He  is  satisfied  that  he  has  proved  “that  the  morally  superior  are  also  the 
most  endowed  mentally.” 

(c)  THE  analytical  METHOD. 

Strongly  opposed  to  the  statistical  treatment  of  the  facts  of  inheritance 
is  the  attempt  to  study  the  segregation  and  transmission  of  unit-characters 
and  to  determine  the  laws  of  dominance  and  of  recession.  Of  Gallon’s  Law, 
Bateson — who  may  be  allowed  to  speak  for  the  followers  of  Mendel — 
writes,  “His  formula  should  in  all  probability  be  looked  upon  rather  as  an 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


9 


occasional  consequence  of  the  actual  laws  of  heredity  than  in  any  proper 
sense  one  of  those  laws”  ( i  :  6).  According  to  Galton’s  Law  every  ancestor 
is  supposed  to  have  some  effect  upon  the  composition  of  a  family,  a  view 
irreconcilable  with  a  belief  in  segregation  or  “dissociation  of  characters 
from  each  other  in  the  course  of  the  formation  of  germs.”  The  non- 
analytical  method  of  Pearson  and  the  English  Biometricians  is  definitely 
rejected  by  Bateson,  as  are  all  methods  that  dispense  with  individual  analysis 
of  material. 

The  study  of  the  transmission  of  unit-characters  in  animal  and  plant 
descent  has  lent  itself  so  readily  to  experimental  treatment  that  it  is  little 
wonder  that  the  biologists  have,  to  a  great  extent,  confined  themselves 
to  such  work  rather  than  attempted  an  application  of  Mendelism  to  human 
inheritance.  Not  only  is  it  difficult  to  get  complete  human  pedigrees,  which 
the  application  of  the  analytic  method  demands,  but  it  is  also  extraordi¬ 
narily  difficult  to  determine  a  unit-character.  Bateson  in  his  recent  book, 
“Mendel’s  Principles  of  Heredity”  (i),  summarizes  the  conclusions  that 
have  been  readied  relative  to  the  application  of  Mendelism  to  human 
inheritance.  It  has  been  shown  that  there  is  Mendelian  inheritance  of  eye- 
color,  and  that  “brown”  eyes  are  dominant  to  “blue”.  The  inheritance  of 
hair-color  is  less  satisfactorily  worked  out,  although  apparently  there  is 
a  segregation  of  red  hair  from  brown,  with  red  as  a  recessive. 

The  existence  of  Mendelian  inheritance  in  the  case  of  abnormal  char¬ 
acters  is  more  clearly  evident  than  its  application  in  the  case  of  normal 
features.  Nearly  all  abnormal  features  that  have  been  shown  to  follow 
Mendelian  inheritance  are  found  dominant  to  the  normal.  The  following 
abnormalities  obey  Mendelian  rules;  Brachydactylism  (shortening  of  the 
fingers  or  toes),  cataract,  various  affections  of  the  skin  and  hair,  con¬ 
genital  stationary  night-blindness.  All  of  these  abnormalities  were  dom¬ 
inants  and  hence  transmitted  only  through  affected  persons.  Certain  sex- 
limited  peculiarities  have  also  been  shown  to  follow  Mendelian  inheritance, 
although  these  cases  are  complicated  by  tbe  fact  that  the  peculiarity  investi¬ 
gated,  such  as  color-blindness  for  instance,  is  usually  dominant  in  males 
and  recessive  in  females.  Color-blindness  may,  therefore,  be  transmitted 
by  affected  males  or  unaffected  females. 

*It  is  so  difficult  to  trace  recessive  variations  in  man,  because  they  are 
frequently  transmitted  through  unaffected  persons,  that  the  records  of 
diseases  apparently  showing  such  recession  are  suggestive  rather  than  con¬ 
clusive.  As  recessive  characters  are  likely  to  appear  in  the  families  result¬ 
ing  from  consanguineous  marriages,  records  of  such  families  are  of  great 
value. 

The  only  attempt,  so  far  as  I  know,  to  apply  Mendelian  interpretation 
to  a  strictly  mental  trait  is  found  in  Hurst’s  observation  “that  the  musical 
sense  is  a  Mendelian  character,  recessive  to  the  non-musical  character  which 
is  dominant”  ( 13  :  47 ) . 

It  will  be  seen  that  Mendelism  demands  critical  and  minute  analysis 
of  material.  The  massing  of  results  is  fatal  to  understanding  them.  If, 
for  example,  in  eye-color,  “blue”  be  the  recessive  and  “brown”  the  dom¬ 
inant  trait,  the  blue-eyed  cbild  shows  the  inheritance  of  a  pure  type  of 
eye-color  and  rejiresents  a  different  possibility  of  transmission  from  his 
brown-eyed  brother,  who  may  either  be  pure  in  type  or  capable  of  trans¬ 
mitting  blue-eyedness  as  well  as  brown-eyedness.  Mendelian  inberitance 
if  found  to  apply  generally  to  human  inheritance  would  lead  to  important 
conclusions,  for  in  the  case  of  inheritance  of  a  pure  type  there  would  be 
no  possibility  of  reversion.  Knowledge  of  the  transmission  of  diseases 
bids  fair  to  increase  our  understanding  of  them  and  to  contribute  to  social 
control. 


10 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


Statistical  methods,  as  previously  stated,  have  been  more  extensively 
applied  in  the  study  of  human  inheritance,  analytical  methods  in  the  study 
of  non-human  inheritance.  Usually,  it  must  be  said,  the  mental  traits 
chosen  for  study  of  inheritance  have  been  selected  on  the  basis  of  a  popular 
and  non-critical  use  of  classificatory  terms.  Thus,  to  the  psychologist  the 
term  “memory”  covers  such  a  multitude  of  facts  that  an  attempt  to  trace 
the  inheritance  or  non-inheritance  of  such  a  so-called  “faculty”  seems  some¬ 
what  undiscriminating.  More  careful  analysis  of  traits  is  clemanded. 

The  present  study  makes  no  pretense  of  applying  either  the  statistical 
or  the  analytical  method  to  the  study  of  handwriting.  In  a  general  way, 
the  treatment  is  descriptive  merely, — an  attempt  to  break  ground,  to  deter¬ 
mine  whether  or  not  the  handwritings  of  related  persons  show  resemblances. 

My  interest  in  the  subject  was  aroused  somewhat  accidentally  by  my 
noticing  upon  the  college  bulletin  board  a  signature  very  similar  to  that 
of  U.  S.  Grant  which  I  had  recently  been  studying.  It  was  the  signature 
of  Mortimer  N.  Grant,  Jr.,  a  distant  cousin  of  the  great  President.  Plate  I 
gives  i\Ir.  Grant’s  signature  with  that  of  his  father  (first  cousin  once  re¬ 
moved  to  U.  S.  Grant),  and  a  reproduction  of  President  Grant’s  autograph. 
The  similarity  is  striking. 


The  “Grant  Family  History”  (12),  which  Mr.  Grant  kindly  procured 
for  me,  shows  a  resemblance  in  the  signatures  of  many  members  of  this 
great  family  organization.  Mr.  Grant  informs  me,  however,  that  fre¬ 
quently  this  similarity  is  confined  to  the  autograph.  One  cannot,  therefore, 
without  further  investigation,  cite  this  as  a  case  of  inheritance  of  hand¬ 
writing.  The  resemblance  involved  may  be  a  very  subtle  effect  of  the 
operation  of  the  law  of  suggestion. 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting.  ii 

II.  THE  INHERITANCE  OF  HANDWRITING. 

I.  Historical  Orientation. 

The  belief  that  there  is  often  a  similarity  between  the  handwritings 
of  different  members  of  the  same  family  is  an  old  one.  The  classic  refer¬ 
ence  is  to  Darwin,  who  writes :  “On  what  a  curious  combination  of  cor¬ 
poreal  structure,  mental  character,  and  training  must  handzvriting  depend ! 
Yet  every  one  must  have  noted  the  occasional  close  similarity  of  the  hand¬ 
writing  in  father  and  son,  although  the  father  had  not  taught  his  son.  *  *  * 
Hofacker,  in  Germany,  remarks  on  the  inheritance  of  handwriting,  and 
it  has  even  been  asserted  that  English  boys,  when  taught  to  write  in  France, 
naturally  cling  to  their  English  manner  of  writing’’  (5).  Carpenter,  who 
quotes  this  passage  in  his  “Mental  Physiology’’  (4:372),  adds  that  he 
has  been  assured  by  Miss  Cobbe  that  a  very  characteristic  type  of  hand¬ 
writing  is  in  her  family  traceable  through  five  generations. 

Gabon  takes  it  for  granted  that  handwriting  runs  strongly  in  families, 
but  states  the  curious  fact  that  in  his  study  of  twins  he  found  a  similarity 
in  handwriting  to  be  rare,  such  dissimilarity  being  in  certain  cases  the 
only  point  of  difference  observed  (9:220). 

In  proof  of  the  alleged  “constitutional”  character  of  handwriting,  atten¬ 
tion  is  called  to  the  fact  that  the  left-handwriting,  mirror-writing  and  foot¬ 
writing  of  a  given  individual  are  found  to  resemble  his  right-handwriting. 
The  individualistic  character  is  preserved.  Theoretically,  there  is  no  reason 
why  motor  peculiarities  should  not  be  transmitted  as  well  as  sensory  ones. 
Galton’s  study  of  the  families  of  wrestlers  and  oarsmen  gave  him  reason 
to  believe  that  strength  and  skill  are  hereditary  (8:296  f.).  And  Bateson 
has  shown  that  among  horses  there  are  natural  pacers  and  natural  trotters, 
and  that  “pacing  is  recessive  to  the  ordinary  trotting  gait  in  the  American 
trotter”  (1:32). 

C.  N.  Mitchell,  in  an  article  on  “The  Making  of  Handwriting,”  con¬ 
tributed  to  “Knowledge  and  Scientific  News”  (14),  accepts  unhesitatingly 
the  opinion  that  individuality  in  handwriting  is  hereditary,  and  states  fur¬ 
ther  “that  there  is  frequently  a  tendency  for  the  sons  to  inherit  certain 
characteristics  in  the  father’s  handwriting,  and  for  the  daughters’  writing 
to  resemble  more  closely  that  of  their  mother  than  that  of  their  father” 
(14:255).  An  illustration  is  offered  of.  the  handwriting  of  father,  mother, 
four  daughters  and  three  sons  which  actually  shows  the  tendency  to  which 
the  author  refers.  The  article  is,  however,  a  summary  of  interesting 
observations  that  have  been  made  upon  handwriting  rather  than  an  original 
contrihution  to  the  subject. 

Pearson  in  his  investigation  upon  fraternal  resemblance,  which  has 
already  been  cited  (15),  included  handwriting  among  the  mental  traits 
examined.  The  handwriting  of  the  children  under  investigation  was  graded 
by  the  teachers  as  \Try  Good,  Good.  Moderate,  Poor,  Bad,  and  Very  Bad. 
Moreover,  a  specimen  of  the  handwriting  of  each  child  was  obtained.  The 
coefficient  of  correlation  was  found  to  be  .53  for  brothers,  .56  for  sisters, 
and  .48  for  brother  and  sister.  Although  it  may  be  necessary  to  discard 
the  statistical  in  favor  of  the  analytic  method  of  investigation,  Pearson’s 
conclusions  in  any  case  have  suggestive  value.  He  finds,  for  example,  a 
very  sensible  correlation  between  psychical  characters  and  handwriting,  but 
only  very  moderate  or  zero  correlations  with  the  physical  characters  (15: 
200).  A  further  communication  relative  to  the  correlation  of  handwriting 
with  particular  mental  traits  is  promised,  but  such  a  communication,  so 
far  as  I  am  aware,  has  not  yet  been  published. 

Pearson’s  conclusion  that  handwriting  should  be  classed  as  a  mental 
rather  than  a  physical  character  is  interesting  in  connection  with  attempts 
to  determine  whether  incobrdinated  or  inaccurate  writing  is  due  to  physical 


12 


Family  Rksemhlance  in  Handwriting. 


peculiarities  or  to  mental  characters,  such  as  indistinct  visual  imager}^  or 
distraction  of  attention.  Gessell  (ii),  ndio  sums  up  the  evidence,  finds 
that  while  all  attempts  to  correlate  handwriting-  peculiarities  with  details 
of  the  structure  of  the  hand  have  been  abortive,  still  there  is  some  evidence 
to  show  that  the  character  of  handwriting  depends  upon  inherited  physical 
traits.  In  his  own  investigation  of  the  handwriting  of  school  children, 
Gessell  found  in  the  primary  grades  a  correlation  of  school  intelligence 
with  accuracy  in  handwriting.  Above  the  primary  grades  this  correlation 
was  cut  by  sex  differences,  inasmuch  as  the  girls  showed  greater  accuracy 
in  handwriting  than  did  the  boys,  an  accuracy  due,  in  Gessell’s  opinion,  to 
their  preoccupation  with  a  visual  image  or  copy.  My  own  experiments  upon 
the  control  processes  in  handwriting  (7)  points  to  a  dependence  of  hand¬ 
writing  appearance  upon  the  specific  control  processes  utilized.  I  do  not  find, 
however,  that  visual  control  necessarily  produces  the  most  effective  results. 
In  any  case,  it  appears  that  both  physical  and  mental  peculiarities  determine 
the  character  of  handwriting. 

This  is  exactly  Avhat  one  would  expect  in  view  of  the  modern  con¬ 
ception  of  the  intimate  relation  between  consciousness  and  movement. 
Mewed  objectively,  movement  is  simply  a  physical  fact,  but  it  is  not 
only  expressive  of  conscious  states,  it  also  serves  as  a  stimulus  to  con¬ 
sciousness  and  contributes  an  essential  factor  to  such  mental  complexes 
as  rhythm,  sentiment,  mental  imagery,  etc.  Bentley  (2)  has  shown  that 
there  are  psychologists  who  find  the  character  of  consciousness  determined 
by  the  “interplay  of  motor  mechanisms"  and  psychologists  who  find  con¬ 
sciousness  primarily  engaged  in  determining  motor  adjustments.  In  either 
case  we  may  expect  to  find  that  motor  peculiarities  furnish  an  index  of 
mental  and  emotional  temperament.  Not  that  one  need  anticipate,  neces¬ 
sarily,  that  motor  skill  or  quick  reaction  should  be  correlated  with  general 
intellectual  ability.  The  relation  between  consciousness  and  motor  ac¬ 
tivity  may  well  be  too  subtle  to  be  disposed  of  in  such  a  summary  fashion. 
Probably  one  should  first  attempt  correlation  of  habits  of  attention  and 
motor  habits  or  correlation  of  temperamental  traits  and  motor  peculiarities. 

Handwriting  is,  of  course,  an  exceedingly  complicated  motor  activity 
and  the  need  of  complete  analysis  which  has  been  insisted  upon  as  so 
necessary  in  a  consideration  of  the  inheritance  of  mental  traits  is  also  to 
be  insisted  upon  in  this  connection.  Writing-speed,  pressure,  slant,  size 
and  formation  of  letters  must  be  separately  investigated.  Fortunately, 
a  technique  for  the  minute  analysis  of  the  writing  act  is  being  worked 
out.  Meanwhile,  it  is  possible  that  a  rough  study  of  resemblances  may 
suggest  the  lines  which  should  be  followed,  later,  in  an  analytical  inquiry. 

2.  Causes  of  Resemblance  in  H andivriting  Other  Than  Inheritance. 

Before  reporting  the  present  investigation,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
consider  what  causes  other  than  inheritance  may  account  for  resemblance 
between  two  given  handwritings.  The  following  causes  may  be  mentioned : 
( I )  Similar  instruction  in  the  art  of  handwriting,  a  factor  which  would 
increase  the  chance  of  resemblance  between  tbe  penmanship  of  contem¬ 
poraries,  especially  those  who  have  received  instruction  under  the  same 
conditions;  (2)  preoccupation  with  the  same  visual  copy,  exposure  to 
the  same  social  influences,  which  would  issue,  possibly,  in  similarity  be¬ 
tween  the  handwriting  of  individuals  belonging  to  the  same  social  or  pro¬ 
fessional  level;  (3)  equality  in  age  and  writing  experience;  (4)  sameness 
of  sex.  To  these  factors  one  may  add,  as  a  possible  cause  of  resemblance, 
general  similarity  in  mental  constitution,  without,  however,  accepting  the 
ambitious  claims  of  the  graphologists. 

To  put  it  concretely,  apart  from  kinship,  similarity  in  handwriting 
may  be  due  to  similar  instruction,  suggestion,  age,  profession,  and  sex. 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


13 


One  would  expect  those  persons  to  write  alike  who  have  been  under  the 
influence  of  the  same  chirographic  fashions,  who  have  submitted  to  the 
requirements  of  the  same  profession,  and  who  are  of  like  age.  Among 
related  persons  the  same  expectations  would  hold.  The  brother  might 
well  write  like  his  brother  because  of  like  instruction  or  like  his  father 
because  of  unconscious  imitation,  or  like  his  cousin  because  of  similarity 
in  age. 

d'here  are  at  hand  studies  which  show  the  extent  to  which  such 
factors  as  age,  sex,  mental  and  moral  peculiarities  are  influential  in  de¬ 
termining  resemblances  in  handwriting.  In  France,  Binet  (3)  has  put  to 
the  test  the  claims  of  the  graphologists  to  tell  from  handwriting  the  age, 
sex,  ability,  and  character  of  the  writer.  Binet  found  that  even  inexpert 
observers  were  able  to  distinguish  masculine  writing  from  feminine  in 
at  least  sixty  cases  out  of  a  hundred,  while  expert  graphologists  sometime 
reached  an  accuracy  of  80  per  cent.  It  was  found  that  age  could  be 
determined  by  the  experts  within  ten  years  and  that,  to  a  certain  extent, 
intellectual  ability  could  also  be  determined,  but  there  was  very  little  evi¬ 
dence  that  character  could  be  ascertained.  It  was  shown  also  that  the 
ability  of  the  graphologists  to  tell  age,  sex,  and  intellectual  ability  from 
handwriting  exceeded  their  power  to  cite  reasons  for  their  judgments.  On 
the  whole,  however,  the  signs  of  sex,  age,  and  ability  which  had  been 
catalogued  by  graphologists  were  found  to  have  a  certain  validity.  On 
the  other  hand,  how  far  an  appeal  sliGuld  be  made  to  social  conditions 
to  explain  these  signs,  how  far  the  appeal  should  be  to  physiological  or 
mental  causes  remains  an  open  question. 

These  factors  that  make  for  resemblance  will  need  to  be  considered 
in  estimating  the  results  obtained  from  the  experiments  to  he  reported 
here.  It  will  be  found,  in  fact,  that  the  present  investigation  contributes 
somewhat  to  an  understanding  of  how  far  character  in  writing  depends 
upon  age  and  sex.  It  must  be  recalled  that  it  is  not  only  in  an  investi¬ 
gation  of  inheritance  of  handwriting  that  the  problem  is  complicated  by 
tbe  age  and  sex  factor.  The  same  complication  is  met  with  in  all  studies 
upon  inheritance. 

The  latter  statement  may  be  repeated  relative  to  similarity  traceable 
to  environmental  influences.  Perhaps,  however,  in  this  connection  it  is 
worth  while  calling  attention  to  a  study  of  invention  made  by  Royce  (17), 
in  whicb  he  showed  a  tendency  for  the  inventive  mind  to  vary  as  widely 
as  possible  from  the  copy  set  before  it.  There  can  be  no  question  that 
for  some  individuals  “the  stimulus  of  the  unlike”  operates  to  accentuate 
differences  between  their  handw'riting  and  that  of  their  associates  either 
in  the  home  or  society. 


III.  EXPERIMENTAL  INVESTIGATION. 

In  carrying  out  a  test  upon  family  resemblance  in  handwriting  two 
great  difficulties  were  encountered :  ( i )  that  of  gathering  a  sufficient 

amount  of  material;  (2)  that  of  working  out  a  satisfactory  method  for 
the  determination  of  resemblances. 

I.  Material. 

The  following  material  was  finally  chosen  as  most  convenient  for  use, 
namely,  envelopes  addressed  to  one  or  two  members  of  the  same  family 
by  related  persons.  As  far  as  possible  the  address  was  kept  constant. 
This  address  w'as,  in  each  case,  unless  otherwise  stated,  cut  out  and  pasted 
upon  an  oblong  of  heavy  yellow  paper.  A  uniform  size  was,  of  course, 
preserved.  The  oblongs  each  carried  a  number.  Several  collections  of 


14  Family  Resemislance  in  Handwriting. 

envelopes  were  made  but  only  four  were  utilized  in  the  present  test.  Each 
collection  will  he  described  in  connection  with  the  use  to  which  it  was 
put.  An  attempt  was  made  to  complete  each  record  in  both  the  paternal 
and  maternal  lines,  but  the  collections  are  very  incomplete.^ 

2.  Method. 

The  working  out  of  a  satisfactory  method  for  determining  resemblance 
in  handwriting  brought  to  light  several  problems.  It  would,  of  course, 
have  been  possible  to  proceed  at  once  to  detailed  measurements  of  the 
slant,  size,  and  formation  of  particular  letters.  It  seemed  better,  however, 
to  limit  the  first  investigation  to  general  appearance  of  the  handwriting 
utilized  in  the  test,  detailed  description  being  left  for  later  work.  At  first 
sight,  it  may  seem  an  easy  matter  to  decide  whether  or  not  a  resemblance 
exists  between  two  handwritings,  but  the  question  arises  how  far  a  re¬ 
semblance  reported  represents  a  subjective  rather  than  an  objective  judg¬ 
ment.  To  measure  degrees  of  resemblance  offered  another  difficulty. 

The  method  finally  selected  was  one  that  permitted  ( i )  a  determination 
of  the  subjective  element  in  judgments  on  the  resemblances  between  hand¬ 
writings:  (2)  an  estimation  of  the  varying  ability  of  individuals  in  deter¬ 
mining  such  resemblance ;  ( 3 )  an  approximation  of  the  degrees  of  re¬ 

semblance  in  a  series. 

This  method  has  been  carefully  worked  out  by  Wells  (20)  in  his 
attempt  to  estimate  the  varying  subjectivity  of  judgments  passed  upon 
different  materials.  Wells'  procedure  was  as  follows:  Fifty  souvenir 
postal  cards  were  arranged  in  tbe  order  of  preference  by  ten  persons, 
the  average  position  given  to  each  card  being  then  calculated  from  the  ten 
arrangements  as  well  as  the  mean  variation  from  this  average  position  and 
the  mean  variation  of  each  person  from  this  average.  Five  of  the  ten 
persons  included  in  the  ten  made  four  other  arrangements  of  the  same 
fifty  cards,  an  interval  of  a  week  elapsing  between  each  arrangement. 
The  mean  variation  of  each  of  these  five  persons  from  the  average  of 
his  own  arrangements  was  then  calculated  and  compared  with  his  mean 
variation  from  the  average  of  the  ten  subjects.  In  this  case  it  was  found 
that  the  individual’s  variations  from  series  to  series  was  much  less  than 
the  individual  variation  from  the  general  average,  thus  witnessing  the 
great  extent  to  which  a  judgment  of  preference  is  subjective.  Wells  shows 
further  that  a  series  of  fifty  cards  and  arrangements  at  week-intervals 
are  sufficient  to  overcome  all  error  arising  from  remembrance  of  a  former 
arrangement.  The  repetition  of  the  test  upon  other  material,  such  as 
colors  and  weights,  completed  the  test  and  showed  that  with  the  increasing 
objectivity  of  tbe  judgment  the  variation  of  the  individual  subject  from 
the  general  average  approximated  his  variation  from  his  own  average. 

This  method,  with  a  few  changes,  was  applied  to  part  of  the  material 
to  be  considered  here.  The  arrangements  were,  however,  made  on  the  basis 
of  the  resemblance  of  each  specimen  in  a  series  to  a  given  standard.  The 
series  were,  moreover,  shorter,  the  longest  containing  only  thirty-eight 
numbers.  The  time-intervals  between  individual  arrangements  was,  oc¬ 
casionally,  equal  to  two  or  three  weeks,  although  as  far  as  possible  an 
effort  was  made  to  keep  it  constant  at  one  week.  It  was  found  that  the 
arrangement  of  thirty-seven  samples  of  handwriting  according  to  their  re¬ 
semblance  to  a  given  standard  took  much  more  time  than  did  the  arrange- 

'I  wish  to  expres.s  my  thanks  to  tliose  who  have  so  kindly  aided  me  in  the  collection 
of  material.  1  am  particularly  indebted  to  Dr.  Grace  K.  Ilebard,  Miss  Harriet  Abbot,  Miss 
Elizabeth  Laninpr,  Mrs.  .1,  T.  Orr,  and  Miss  Laura  lireisch. 

1  should  be  very  t?lad  to  receive  material  from  anyone  who  will  undertake  the  col¬ 
lection  of  a  series  of  enveloi)es,  addressed  by  members  of  his  own  family.  All  relationships, 
however  remote,  may  be  represented  and  the  handwriting  of  tho.se  connected  by  marriage 
should  be  included.  The  approximate  age  of  each  penman  should  be  recorded. 


Family  Resemiilanck  in  Handwriting. 


ment  of  fifty  souvenir  postal  cards  according  to  preference.  Such  a  slow 
and  fatiguing  operation  was  it  that  where  repeated  arrangements  are  not 
to  be  made  a  comparatively  short  series  seems  preferable  to  a  long  one. 

The  subject  was  instructed  to  arrange  the  writing  specimens  in  the 
order  of  their  likeness  to  a  given  standard.  No  explanation  was  given 
of  the  sort  of  resemblance  to  be  utilized  in  passing  judgment.  At  the 
close  of  each  test,  the  subject  recorded,  so  far  as  he  was  able,  the  basis 
upon  which  he  had  passed  his  judgment,  whether  he  had  given  particular 
attention  to  slant  of  writing,  size  and  formation  of  letters,  or  limited 
himself  to  what  he  called  "the  general  effect  or  appearance"  of  the  writing. 
A  record  was  also  kept  of  the  time  consumed  by  each  subject  on  eacli 
series. 

Some  thirtv  subjects  have  contributed  to  the  results  now  to  be  re¬ 
ported.* *  Most  of  these  subjects  were  college  women  of  all  grades  from 
Freshman  to  Graduate.  Twelve  have  done  a  little  work  in  psychology, 
but  only  four  of  the  number  have  had  training  in  psychological  e.xperi- 
mentation.  In  ages,  they  varied  from  sixteen  to  fifty  years. 


3.  The  Subjective  Elcuicnt  in  Judgments  on  Handzeritinij  Resemblances. 

In  applying  Wells'  method  for  determining  the  subjective  elemeht  in 
a  particular  kind  of  judgment,  two  collections  of  handwriting  were  utilized, 
namely.  Collection  D  and  Collection  A.  In  the  case  of  each,  a  standard 
was  chosen  and  ten  subjects  arranged  each  collection  in  the  order  of 
its  likeness  to  the  given  standard.  Five  of  these  ten  subjects  repeated 
the  test  four  times,  at  intervals  usually  of  a  week. 

(a)  collection  I). 

This  collection  was  the  largest  gathered.  But  not  all  of  the  speci¬ 
mens  obtained  from  related  members  were  included  in  the  e.xperimental 
series  because  of  variation  in  the  form  of  address.  As  finally  selected 
it  was  composed  of  thirty-eight  samples,  as  follows:  i(F)^,  5(I\I),  io(M), 
15(F),  2i(M),  22(M),  25(F),  42(F).  46(F).  48(F).  brothers  and  sis¬ 
ters;  8(F)  and  13(F),  half-sisters  (paternal)  to  the  former;  ii(M) 
and  7(F),  father  and  mother  to  i,  etc.;  18(F),  daughter  to  13;  16(F), 
36(F),  45(F).  paternal  aunts  to  i.  etc.,  and  to  8  and  13;  49)  AI),  paternal 
uncle  to  the  same;  20(F),  24(F).  41(F).  50 (M),  paternal  cousins  to 
the  same;  3(F),  maternal  grandmother  to  i,  etc.;  i9(M).  maternal  uncle 
to  the  same;  14(F)  and  23(M),  maternal  cousins  to  the  same;  2(M), 
6(F),  9(M)  and  17(F)  constitute  another  family  group  unrelated  to 
the  former;  so  also  do  30(F)  and  35(F);  and  32(M)  and  44(M).  A 
few  duplicates  were  introduced  where  variation  appeared  in  the  hand¬ 
writing  at  different  periods ;  thus  4  is  written  by  the  same  person  as 
13,  but  fifteen  years  earlier;  26  was  written  by  the  same  hand  as  14,  but 
thirteen  years  before ;  53  was  written  five  years  later  than  5.  but  by  the 
same  person.  As  was  stated  above,  the  whole  collection  was  not  utilized 
in  the  test.  It  includes  besides  the  specimens  just  listed  the  handwriting 
of  the  paternal  grandfather  of  1,  etc.;  six  additional  paternal  cousins: 
one  paternal  uncle ;  and  on  the  mother's  side,  the  handwriting  of  a  great¬ 
grandmother,  great-uncle,  and  aunt. 

D13  was  chosen  as  standard  for  comparison. 

’I  would  take  this  opportunity  to  thunk  those  who  served  ,as  suhieets  in  the  test. 
especLally  .Miss  Einnu  Eggleston,  .Miss  Laura  Ilreiseh,  .Miss  Leslie  Look,  and  Miss  .Mar¬ 
guerite  Knopf. 

*The  letters  F  and  M  are  nsed  to  indicate  the  sex  of  the  penman. 


i('  Famii^v  Resemblanck  in  Handwriting. 

(b)  collection  a. 

This  collection  was  composed  of  thirty-five  specimens  of  handwriting, 
as  follows:  ifF).  4(]M),  30(F).  brother  and  sisters:  10(F).  their  mother; 
I9(i\l).  their  maternal  grandfather ;  2(]\I),  ii(]M),  I7(]N1),  25(F),  28(F), 
their  maternal  uncles  and  aunts;  7(F),  13(F),  22(M),  27(M),  33(F), 
maternal  cousins;  8(F),  9(]\I),  paternal  aunt  and  uncle  to  i.  etc.;  14)  M), 
23(F),  26(i\l),  paternal  cousins  to  the  same.  The  other  relationships  are 
more  remote,  as  follows:  3(F),  paternal  half-cousin  to  i,  etc.  (daughter 
of  a  half-brother  of  I's  father);  6(F),  16(F),  20(F),  24(?),  31(F), 
nieces  to  19.  and,  hence,  paternal  cousins  to  2,  10,  etc.;  21  (M),  nephew 
to  19  and  to  19's  wife,  hence,  double  first  cousin  to  2,  10,  etc.;  29(F), 
36(F).  maternal  cousins  to  2,  10,  etc. ;  35 (M),  maternal  uncle  to  2.  10,  etc. ; 
5(F).  daughter  to  6;  32 (M),  son  of  31  ;  34(F),  daughter  to  21  ;  12(F), 
wife  of  9 ;  18(F).  wife  of  2. 

.-\i9  was  chosen  as  standard  for  comparison.  . 


table  I. 


X. 

V. 

Results  for  Ten  Subjects 

-013. 

Average  of  Table 

II 

Order 

No.  of 
Card 

Position 

M.  V. 

Order 

Position 

M.  V. 

1 

10 

2.1 

1.34 

1 

1.44 

.19 

2 

45 

6.8 

4.32 

2 

4.08 

1.58 

3 

7 

8.4 

3.  SO 

3 

5.44 

3.05 

4 

53 

10.0 

7.60 

4 

7.2 

3.07 

5 

20 

10.8 

6.56 

5 

8.04 

3.95 

r> 

5 

12.3 

8.10 

6 

9.0 

4.41 

7 

24 

12.4 

6.60 

7 

9.48 

3.44 

8 

22 

13.1 

6.50 

8 

10.24 

5.93 

9 

2 

13.3 

4.50 

9 

11.64 

4.83 

10 

4 

13.3 

6.64 

10 

12.32 

5.92 

11 

9 

14.1 

4.50 

11 

13.16 

5.39 

12 

17 

14.2 

8.28 

12 

14.0 

6.71 

13 

35 

14.4 

3.76 

13 

14.88 

4.81 

14 

36 

14.5 

7.0 

14 

15.72 

3.34 

15 

18 

16.0 

9.0 

15 

15.92 

4.57 

16 

21 

17.2 

6.56 

16 

17.00 

4.92 

17 

32 

17.2 

7.6 

17 

17.72 

6.72 

18 

15 

18.5 

7.4 

18 

18.40 

6.73 

19 

23 

18.7 

8.0 

19 

19.12 

4.67 

20 

41 

19.6 

7.6 

20 

20.00 

6.38 

21 

44 

20.2 

6.8 

21 

20.40 

4.75 

22 

16 

20.3 

6.10 

•  22 

21.12 

6.21 

23 

8 

20.9 

6.28 

23 

21.80 

4.65 

24 

14 

21.1 

7.3 

24 

22.68 

3.84 

25 

42 

21.1 

8.68 

25 

23.16 

5.08 

26 

30 

21.1 

9.1 

26 

24.04 

4.91 

27 

6 

23.0 

6.2 

27 

25.16 

3.10 

28 

48 

24 

5.8 

28 

25.52 

4.25 

29 

3 

24.3 

4.1 

29 

26.40 

4.26 

30 

26 

24.9 

4.52 

30 

27.00 

3.68 

31 

25 

25.8 

5.04 

31 

27.60 

3.92 

32 

50 

29.9 

4.79 

32 

28.72 

3.74 

33 

46 

30.3 

3.84 

33 

30.92 

4.00 

34 

49 

31.3 

4.16 

34 

31.44 

3.56 

35 

19 

31.5 

4.60 

35 

31.96 

3.58 

36 

11 

32.1 

3.26 

36 

33.84 

2.57 

37 

1 

34.3 

2.24 

37 

36.24 

.61 

Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting, 


1/ 


TABLE  II.  STANDARD  D13. 


Dy 

1 

Ck 

Bt 

Wd 

Kt 

1  0  'O 

■  Ot- 

c  --- 

O-c 

Posi- 

M. 

.  ^ 

Posi- 

M. 

< 

Posi- 

M. 

Posi- 

M. 

Post- 

M. 

o 

tion 

V. 

tion 

V. 

•^,o 

tion 

V. 

ZQ 

tion 

V. 

tion 

V. 

1 

10 

1 

0 

45 

2.8 

.32 

;  10 

1 

0 

10 

1.4 

.64 

10 

1 

0 

2 

53 

4.4 

2.24 

2 

7.4 

2.08 

1  20 

4.2 

2.72 

17 

2.0 

.40 

7 

2.4 

.48 

3 

45 

4.4 

2.64 

7 

7.4 

5.28 

1  18 

5.0 

1.2 

31) 

5,8 

4.88 

24 

4.6 

1.28 

4 

41 

5.2 

2.24 

10 

9.0 

3.60 

53 

6.2 

3.12 

53 

6.8 

1.04 

30 

8.8 

5.36 

5 

4 

5.6 

1.76 

36 

10.4 

5.28 

14 

6.4 

2.88 

18 

8.2 

4.32 

22 

9.6 

5.52 

() 

22 

6.2 

2.16 

53 

10.6 

6.08 

17 

8.4 

3.92 

32 

8.4 

2.08 

41 

ii.-i 

7.84 

7 

21 

6.6 

1.68 

14 

11.0 

2.40 

i 

8.6 

1.68 

2 

8.6 

4.32 

45 

11.6 

7.12 

8 

24 

9.8 

2.1G 

20 

12.4 

9.08 

1  22 

9.8 

5,44 

45 

88 

3.84 

16 

11.6 

8.56 . 

9 

2 

9.8 

2M 

17 

13.8 

6.96 

:  15 

10 

1.6 

20 

9.2 

4.16 

53 

15.4 

8.88 

10 

36 

9.8 

4.24 

32 

14.0 

8.40 

8 

10.8 

a.3() 

42 

10.0 

2.4 

21 

17 

9.20 

11 

5 

11.4 

2.S8 

35 

14.2 

6.72 

'  35 

11.4 

2.72 

15 

11.8 

3.84 

23 

17 

10.8 

12 

18 

12.4 

2.88 

30 

15 

11.60 

32 

12.4 

3.68 

22 

13 

2.8 

36 

17.2 

12.6 

13 

17 

13.8 

3.84 

15 

1,5.2 

6.24 

42 

12.6 

4.72 

5 

14.2 

4.96 

35 

18.6 

4.32 

14 

7 

14.6 

2.72 

16 

15.4 

2.32 

1  2 

14.0 

4.00 

9 

15.8 

3.44 

32 

18.8 

4.24 

15 

6 

15.2 

2,64 

8 

16.2 

11.44 

i  ^ 

14.4 

6.32 

44 

15.8 

6.16 

20 

18.8 

5.36 

16 

42 

17.4 

3.92 

22 

16.8 

9.04 

1.5.2 

4.56 

35 

16.6 

3.92 

2 

19.0 

3.20 

17 

16 

17.8 

5.84 

21 

17.4 

6.48 

36 

17.0 

8.40 

7 

17.2 

3.44 

14 

19.2 

9.44 

18 

3 

18.2 

4.56 

9 

18.2 

8.22 

16 

18.0 

3.60 

25 

18.2 

6.64 

15 

19.4 

5.68 

19 

20 

18.8 

2.96 

19 

19.4 

5.92 

,  24 

19.4 

2.08 

21 

18.6 

4.88 

3 

19.4 

7.52 

20 

9 

19.4 

4.72 

26 

19.4 

13.92 

'  i 

21.8 

4.96 

6 

19.0 

4.80 

26 

20.4 

3.52 

21 

15 

20.6 

3.. 50 

44 

19.6 

3.92 

9 

21.8 

6.64 

36 

19.2 

4.96 

25 

20.8 

4.96 

22 

35 

20.8 

4.56 

24 

20.6 

8.88 

3 

22.2 

5.04 

4 

21.0 

3.6 

4 

21 

4.0 

23 

8 

21.8 

3.44 

18 

21.4 

8.08 

21 

23 

3.20 

8 

21.8 

4.16 

11 

21 

4.40 

24 

30 

23.2 

3.44 

5 

23.2 

3.04 

20 

24 

2.0 

14 

21.8 

5.36 

44 

21.2 

5.36 

25 

23 

23.4 

1.52 

6 

23.8 

6.24 

44 

24.2 

4.64 

24 

23.2 

6.88 

9 

21.2 

6.16 

26 

48 

25 

4.4 

41 

23.8 

8.64 

23 

25 

4.40 

49 

25 

3.20 

8 

21.4 

3.92 

27 

25 

26.2 

.64 

42 

24.2 

2.24 

30 

27.4 

3.92 

3 

25.4 

3.28 

6 

22.6 

,5.44 

28 

14 

27.4 

3.12 

4 

24.2 

2.96 

6 

27.6 

4.48 

26 

25.8 

3.04 

42 

22.6 

7.68 

29 

26 

28.4 

1.72 

25 

25.0 

6.00 

19 

27.8 

2.16 

23 

28.2 

2..56 

5 

22.6 

8.88 

30 

44 

30 

.8 

3 

25.4 

2.88 

41 

28.2 

2.16 

48 

28.6 

3.68 

18 

22.8 

8.24 

31 

19 

30 

1.6 

48 

25.6 

4.08 

.50 

29.2 

4.11 

50 

29.2 

2.64 

50 

24.0 

7 

32 

46 

31.8 

1.84 

23 

26.0 

4.4 

11 

30.2 

4.16 

16 

31.0 

2.0 

19 

24.6 

6.32 

33 

50 

33.4 

1.68 

11 

28.6 

7.84 

1 

31.4 

2.72 

46 

33.6 

2.32 

48 

27.6 

6.44 

34 

11 

33.4 

2.96 

46 

28.8 

3.00 

46 

31.6 

4.48 

19 

33.8 

1.52 

46 

29.6 

5.84 

35 

32 

33.8 

.64 

50 

29.4 

4.32 

25 

31.8 

4.32 

41 

34.6 

1.28 

49 

30.2 

7.38 

30 

1 

35 

.8 

1 

33.2 

3.68 

49 

34.0 

1.22 

11 

35.0 

.8 

1 

32 

6.4 

37 

49 

37 

0 

49 

34.2 

1.84 

48 

37.0 

0 

1 

36.4 

.72 

17 

36.6 

.48 

TABLE  III. 


X. 

V. 

Results  for 

10  Subjects 

A19 

Average  of  'I’nble  IV. 

Order 

No.  of 
Card 

Position 

M.  V. 

Order 

Position 

M.  V. 

1 

2 

5.7 

3.64 

1 

3.40 

1.92 

2 

25 

6.0 

3.80 

2 

4.68 

2.27 

3 

27 

8.5 

7.20 

3 

5.04 

3.14 

4 

10 

8.8 

5.20 

4 

5.68 

3.17 

5 

4 

9. .3 

5.42 

5 

6.48 

2.99 

6 

21 

9.8 

3.76 

6 

7.36 

3.07 

7 

22 

10.3 

6.52 

7 

7.88 

2.92 

8 

31 

10.3 

6.66 

8 

9.04 

3.16' 

9 

17 

10.5 

8.60 

9 

10.12 

3.28 

10 

20 

11.7 

5.44 

]U 

10.. 52 

2.83 

11 

35 

12.4 

5.54 

11 

11.08 

3.56 

12 

29 

12.9 

5.70 

12 

12.36 

4.70 

13 

11 

13.4 

7.84 

13 

14.00 

4.94 

14 

12 

15.3 

5.62 

14 

14.64 

2.68 

16 

28 

15.5 

4.40 

15 

15.36 

3.62 

16 

9 

15.5 

7.10 

16 

15.72 

4.20 

17 

18 

15.6 

4,60 

17 

16.32 

3. ,58 

18 

16 

17.5 

3.10 

18 

17.52 

3.87 

19 

26 

18.3 

9.84 

19 

18.40 

4.12 

20 

32 

19.0 

7.40 

20 

19.12 

2.54 

21 

6 

19.3 

5.90 

21 

20.12 

2.24 

22 

24 

20.6 

3.40 

22 

20.72 

3.44 

23 

30 

22.7 

5.50 

23 

21.68 

2.26 

24 

8 

23.5 

6.30 

24 

‘>>  .52 

3.37 

25 

14 

23.8 

5.84 

25 

24.44 

3.28 

26 

3 

23.8 

7.40 

26 

25.28 

2.46 

27 

1 

23.9 

6.34 

27 

26.44 

3.72 

28 

36 

24.9 

4.50 

28 

27.32 

3.82 

29 

84 

25.8 

2.84 

29 

28.08 

1.76 

30 

33 

25.8 

3.28 

30 

28.56 

1.93 

31 

23 

26.4 

4.60 

31 

29.04 

2. ,56 

32 

13 

27.4 

4.64 

32 

30.64 

1.16 

33 

7 

28.2 

2.92 

33 

32.20 

.86 

34 

5 

32.6 

1.76 

34 

33.24 

.74 

Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


i8 


TABLK  IV.  A19  STANDARD. 


Dy 

Hu 

Ss 

Bh 

Jn 

Or- 

o-c 

0  tT 

C 

.  u 

M. 

C  rt 

i-OSI- 

M. 

0  C3 

Posi- 

M. 

.  (-■ 

0  « 

Posi- 

M. 

Posi- 

M. 

c 

>7  0 

tion 

'  ■ 

tion 

V.  1 

tion 

V. 

>70 

tion 

V. 

>50 

tion 

V. 

a 

27 

1.6 

.72 

27 

1.0 

0 

2 

4.6 

3.12 

4 

3 

l.()  1 

20 

6.8 

4.16 

2 

22 

2.6 

.72 

31 

4.4 

.88 

25 

5.8 

2.24 

17 

3.6 

2.72 

17 

7.0 

4.8 

17 

3.0 

1.28 

22 

4.6 

1.92 

21 

6.0 

6.4 

20 

3.8 

2.24 

29 

7.2 

3.84 

4 

21 

3.6 

I.-IS 

26 

4.8 

1.44 

31 

6.2 

3.92 

10 

6.2 

3.04  1 

10 

7.6 

5.92 

•» 

2 

.‘>.2 

1.84 

2 

4.8 

3.36 

29 

7.8 

4.16 

29 

6.8 

2.16  1 

2 

7.8 

3.44 

<; 

4 

.'■>.8 

1.44 

20 

6.0 

2.00 

9 

8.4 

3.12 

12 

7.8 

4.24 

32 

7.8 

4.56 

7 

11 

1.60 

29 

6.6 

2.32 

35 

8.6 

1.76 

28 

8.2 

4.16 

25 

9.0 

4.80 

31 

9.0 

.72 

21 

7.0 

1.60 

4 

10.2 

5.84 

31 

9.0 

2.8  I 

22 

9.4 

4.88 

<) 

25 

9.8 

1.44 

4 

10.8 

2.16 

20 

10.8 

6.24 

21 

9.6 

2.88 

11 

9.6 

3.68 

10 

10 

9.8 

3.36 

14 

11.2 

1.44 

32 

11.0 

4.00 

32 

10.2 

2.24  1 

12 

10.4 

3.12 

11 

29 

11 

1.60 

1 

11.8 

1.04 

10 

11.8 

5.44 

30 

10.4 

3.28 

13 

10.4 

6.48 

1-2 

20 

14.2 

4.64 

10 

12.6 

2.32 

26 

13.4 

5.44 

11 

11 

5.6 

31 

10.6 

5.52 

13 

28 

14.6 

2.32 

25 

14.2 

9.84 

22 

14.0 

5.20 

36 

16.2 

3.30  1 

21 

11.0 

4.00 

14 

14 

16  2 

1.04 

30 

15 

2.40 

11 

14.8 

4.56 

27 

17.2 

1.04  ! 

18 

11.0 

4.40 

lo 

2(5 

17.2 

5,84 

6 

15.2 

3.04 

28 

15.2 

4.16 

23 

17.6 

2.72  1 

35 

11.4 

2.32 

10 

1 

17.8 

6.--8 

13 

16.4 

1.12 

30 

15.2 

5.36 

1 

17.8 

4.96  ' 

9 

11.4 

3.12 

17 

6 

18.4 

3.12 

23 

16.8 

1.76 

18 

15.8 

3.76 

24 

18.6 

4.48 

8 

12 

4.8 

18 

so 

19,6 

3.16 

16 

17.0 

3.20 

12 

16.0 

4.0 

16 

18.8 

2.72 

4 

16.2 

6.68 

1() 

13 

20.2 

6.22 

7 

17.2 

.64 

17 

17.0 

8.0 

13 

19.4 

3.92 

6 

18.2 

1.84 

•20 

24 

20.2 

1.36 

33 

18.0 

2.0 

27 

17.4 

3.36 

34 

20.2 

4.24 

24 

19.8 

1.76 

21 

18 

20.4 

2.32 

3 

21.8 

2.16 

6 

17.4 

3.68 

33 

20.4 

2.16 

36 

20.6 

.88 

22 

23 

21.6 

5.52 

34 

22.0 

1.20 

36 

18.2 

3.84 

22 

21 

4.40 

30 

20.8 

2.24 

2,3 

16 

21.6 

3.40 

24 

22.8 

1.04 

24 

20.2 

2.24 

7 

22.2 

3.52 

16 

21.6 

1.12 

24 

35 

22.0 

4.40 

35 

■  22.8 

5.12 

16 

22.0 

2.40 

14 

22.8 

2.16 

27 

23 

2.8 

25 

32 

22.4 

4.72 

32 

23.2 

.96 

1 

26.6 

1.76 

2 

23.6 

7.44 

34 

26.4 

1.52 

26 

12 

24.4 

3.28 

18 

24.8 

1.04 

14 

27.0 

2.40 

26 

23.8 

3.92 

14 

26.4 

1.68 

27 

9 

27.2 

1.82 

17 

26.0 

2.40 

23 

27.0 

3.20 

25 

24.0 

8.40 

1 

28 

2.8 

28 

33 

28.4 

2.72 

28 

28.0 

.80 

8 

27.6 

7.28 

9 

24.4 

6..56 

7 

28.2 

1.76 

29 

7 

28.6 

1.92 

9 

29.4 

.72 

13 

28.2 

1.76 

35 

24.8 

3.56 

23 

29.4 

.88 

30 

34 

28.6 

1.84 

36 

29.8 

1.44 

7 

29.4 

.72 

6 

25.8 

3.76 

26 

29.4 

1.92 

31 

36 

28.6 

.72 

11 

30.2 

1.04 

3 

29.4 

6.96 

18 

27.8 

2.16 

33 

29.4 

1.92 

32 

3 

29.2 

3.28 

8 

31.8 

.32 

1  33 

30.0 

.80 

5 

32 

0 

13 

■  30.2 

1.44 

33 

8 

31.6 

2.40 

12 

33.0 

0 

1  34 

30.4 

1.92 

3 

33 

0 

3 

33 

0 

34 

5 

32.6 

2.24 

5 

34.0 

0 

1  5 

31.6 

1.44 

8 

34 

0 

5 

34 

0 

(C).  RESULTS. 

Table  I  gives  under  X  the  order  of  resemblance  of  the  thirty-seven 
cards  to  D13.  obtained  by  averaging  the  positions  given  to  each  card  by 
ten  subjects.  The  average  position  and  the  m.v.  from  this  position  are 
also  given.  Column  V  of  the  same  table  gives  the  averaged  position  and 
m.v.  obtained  by  a  combination  of  the  five  records  given  in  Table  II.  This 
latter  table  gives  in  detail  the  order  for  each  card  assigned  by  five  subjects, 
the  order  being  determined  by  averaging  the  positions  given  by  each  subject 
in  five  successive  arrangements.  The  average  position  and  m.v.  are  also 
given.  Tables  III  and  IV  give  the  same  data  for  Aig. 

A  comparison  of  columns  X  and  V  in  Tables  I  and  IV  will  show 
how  far  the  judgment  of  resemblance  on  handwriting  is  subjective,  how 
far,  that  is,  it  is  centering  around  an  individual  mean  rather  than  around 
an  objective  standard,  since,  theoretically,  in  repeated  judgments  of  the 
latter  sort,  if  memory  be  ruled  out,  the  variations  of  an  individual  from 
his  own  average  should  approximate  his  variation  from  the  average  of 
many  individuals. 

Table  I,  D13.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  range  in  X,  is  from  2.1  to 
34.3;  in  V  from  1.44  to  36.24.  In  X  the  m.v.’s  average  5.92  and  range 
from  T.34  to  9.1.  Some  of  the  individual  variations  are  very  large;  for 
example,  card  17,  an  extremely  variable  card,  shows  one  variation  that 
is  equal  to  22.8.  In  V,  the  m.v.’s  average  4.14  and  range  from  .19  to  6.72. 
Some  very  large  variations  occur  among  the  individual  records.  Kf,  for 
instance,  gives  one  equal  to  10.8  and  Ck  one  equal  to  13.68.  The  individual 
range  of  judgment  is  not  much  greater  than  the  range  in  X;  nor  is  the 
average  variation  much  smaller. 

Table  III,  A19.  This  table  shows  that  the  range  in  X  is  from  5.7 
to  32.6;  in  V  from  3.4  to  33.24.  The  m.v.’s  in  X  average  5.3  and  range 
from  1.76  to  9.84;  in  V,  the  m.v.’s  average  2.93  and  range  from  .736  to 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


19 


4.94.  Again,  although  the  subjective  element  is  evident,  there  is  no  great 
difference  in  range  nor  in  the  average  m.v. 

It  is  clear  that  the  subjective  element  is  present  in  these  judgments 
upon  handwriting,  but  it  is  much  less  evident  than  Wells  found  it  to  he 
in  judgments  of  preference.  Anyone  interested  may  find  it  profitable  to 
compare  his  tables  with  mine.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  also  evident  that 
the  results  can  be  utilized  in  an  objective  way  only  after  careful  con¬ 
sideration  of  each  card  separately.  In  certain  cases  the  variations  are 
so  great  as  to  make  the  records  of  no  practical  value.  Unfortunately, 
we  have  no  objective  scale  to  which  we  can  appeal  to  determine  the  actual 
value  of  any  particular  arrangement,  for  handwriting  resemblance  is  an 
uncertain  basis  for  judgment  since  it  may  be  resolved  into  many  different 
kinds  of  similarity.  One  object  of  the  test  was,  however,  to  find  out  whether 
the  so-called  individuality  of  handwriting  could  serve  as  a  basis  for  de¬ 
termination  of  resemblance.  In  any  case,  some  very  close  resemblances  were 
uniformly  noticed;  the  concurrence  of  judgment  with  reference  to  certain 
cards  is  very  striking.  A  more  complete  discussion  of  Tables  I  and  III 
will  follow  in  the  sections  in  which  the  degrees  of  resemblance  noticed 
and  the  varying  value  of  the  judgments  of  different  individuals  are  dis¬ 
cussed. 

The  test  on  the  subjectivity  of  the  judgment  under  consideration  was 
repeated,  using  D35  and  A12  as  standards  for  comparison.  Whereas  the 
penman  of  D13  is  related  to  twenty-one  persons  in  the  D  collection,  D35  is 
related  to  only  one  (D30,  sister).  A 19  is  related  to  twenty-three  persons 
in  Collection  A;  A12  is  related  to  one  only  (A14,  son). 

As  before,  ten  subjects  arranged  the  thirty-seven  specimens  of  Collec¬ 
tion  D  in  the  order  of  their  resemblance  to  D35.  Three  (3)  of  the  ten 
subjects  made  four  other  arrangements  at  intervals  of  a  week  or  more. 
'Phe  range  of  positions  covered  in  the  average  positions  given  by  the  ten 
subjects  is  for  35  from  6  to  35.6, — a  smaller  range  than  was  obtained  for 
D13.  The  m.v.’s  average  6.53, — a  larger  mean  variation  than  was  found 
for  D13;  the  m.v.’s  range  from  1.28  to  lo.i.  A  comparison  of  the  results 
for  D35  and  D13  points  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is  some  factor  in  the 
case  of  the  latter  tending  to  steady  the  judgment.  It  seems  reasonable  to 
conclude  that  this  factor  is  the  presence  of  an  objcctk'c  resemblance. 
The  average  of  the  repeated  judgments  for  three  subjects  (  Dy,  Bt,  W’d ) 
when  combined  give  a  range  of  1.93  to  36.6,  and  an  average  m.  v.  of  3.43 
with  a  range  of  m.v.’s  from  .37  to  6.32. 

Ten  subjects  arranged  the  specimens  of  Collection  A  in  the  order  of 
their  likeness  to  A 12,  and  five  of  these  subjects  made  four  other  arrange¬ 
ments  at  intervals  of  a  week  or  more.  The  range  of  position  covered  by 
the  averaged  positions  of  the  ten  subjects  is  from  7  to  32.4:  the  m.v.’s 
average  5.36  and  range  from  2.6  to  11.16.  The  repeated  arrangements 
when  averaged  and  combined  give  a  range  from  2.08  to  32.88  and  an  aver¬ 
age  m.v.  of  3.43  with  a  range  from  1.36  to  5.40.  A  comparison  with  the 
results  for  A 19  shows  that  the  subjective  element  is  more  noticeable  in  the 
arrangements  for  12  than  in  those  for  19,  a  fact  pointing  again  to  the 
presence  in  the  latter  case  of  a  more  objective  resemblance. 

The  conclusion  drawn  is  that  although  the  subjective  factor  is  present 
in  judgments  on  handwriting,  it  is  reduced  in  the  case  of  very  strong 
resemblances.  On  the  whole,  handwriting  off'ers  an  excellent  material  for 
the  study  of  such  judgments,  and  the  results  obtained  from  it  should  be 
compared  with  those  reported  by  Dearborn  (6),  in  a  test  in  which  chance 
blots  of  ink  were  utilized  as  material. 


~o  Family  Rrskmrlanck  in  Handwriting. 

4.  I'aryiiKj  .  Ibility  of  I)idn'idiials  in  Dctcnnination  of  Handzvrifing 

Rcscinbldnccs. 

I'lefore  discussing  the  degrees  of  resemblance  revealed  by  the  test,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  consider  the  varying  ability  of  individual  subjects 
to  determine  resemblance. 

Different  subjects  varied  greatly  in  their  method  of  procedure  in  the 
test.^  Some  were  exceedingly  deliberate  and  made  a  careful  comparison  of 
details.  Others,  as  Bt.  satisfied  themselves  with  a  mere  glance  of  the  eye. 
The  latter  were  frequently  unable  to  give  a  basis  for  their  judgments, 
which  were  probably  affective  in  character.  Certain  subjects  would  so  con¬ 
centrate  upon  a  particular  detail  as  to  lose  all  awareness  of  general  simi¬ 
larity.  They  were  conscious,  too,  at  times  of  a  shift  in  the  basis  upon  which 
judgments  were  made.  Only  a  few  subjects  made  use  of  word-concepts, 
a  method  frequently  utilized  by  Dearborn’s  subjects.  One  (Dy),  however, 
definitely  grouped  the  specimen  by  the  use  of  such  symbolic  terms  as 
■■Calm,"  "Cross-Grained,"  “Querulous"  and  the  like;  another  utilized  such 
simple  categories  as  "Straight,"  “Slight  slant,"  "Moderate  slant,"  “Deep 
slant,"  and  “Back-hand." 

Toward  the  close  of  a  series  the  judgments  became  judgments  of  dis¬ 
similarity.  The  records  show  that  such  a  judgment  is  frequently  made 
more  easily  than  is  a  judgment  of  likeness.  This  agrees  with  Dearborn’s 
report.  There  were  subjects,  as  Jn,  who  were  more  constant  in  their  judg¬ 
ments  of  dissimilarity  than  in  those  of  similarity,  and  who  varied  less  from 
the  average  in  the  case  of  the  latter.  Some  subjects,  Kf,  for  instance, 
first  selected  the  specimens  most  unlike  the  standard  and  then  proceeded 
to  find  the  similar  hands  by  elimination  of  the  unlike. 

Certain  subjects  resorted  to  a  rapid  sorting  of  the  cards  into  groups, 
later  determining  the  relative  position  in  the  group  by  an  attempt  to  "shade” 
a  group  into  the  group  that  preceded  and  the  one  that  followed  it.  Several 
subjects,  as  Kf  and  Jn,  showed  a  tendency  to  "shade"  the  series  as  a  whole, 
that  is,  to  place  a  card  not  only  by  its  degree  of  likeness  to  the  standard, 
but  also  by  its  ' similarity  to  the  preceding  card.  This  failure  to  use  the 
standard  as  the  sole  point  of  reference  operated  to  increase  variation. 

The  experiments  made  it  evident  that  there  are  certain  highly  original 
or  unduly  artificial  hands  that  are  judged  by  every  subject  to  be  unlike  every 
other  hand.  Yet  the  use  of  this  hand  as  a  standard  frequently  showed 
that  it  was  less  unlike  certain  hands  than  others.  A  complete  record  of 
a  collection  should,  therefore,  involve  using,  one  after  the  other,  every 
hand  as  a  standard.  But  in  the  longer  collections  of  the  present  test  such 
a ’serial  rearrangement  of  material  would  have  required  much  more  time 
than  could  reasonably  have  been  asked  of  a  subject.  Again,  hands  were 
found  that  always  stood  well  up  in  position,  as,  in  a  way,  similar  to  every 
standard  used.  These  hands  are  simple,  conventional  hands,  with  little 
claim  to  originality. 

An  interesting  observation  made  by  several  subjects  during  the  test 
was  that  the  feeling  of  similarity  varied  greatly  frqm  day  to  day.  There 
were  periods  when  every  specimen  of  writing  seemed  to  resemble  every 
other  specimen  and  other  days  when  every  specimen  seemed  unlike  every 
other.  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  acute  introspection  would  find  this 
shifting  feeling  of  similarity  dependent  upon  variations  in  organic  condi¬ 
tions,  as  such  shifts  were  especially  noticeable  on  days  when  the  subject 
was  somewhat  indisposed  or  feeling  unduly  exhilarated.  Fatigue  also  influ¬ 
enced  the  feeling  to  a  great  extent. 

But  the  subjects  not  only  varied  greatly  in  their  methods  of  procedure: 
they  also  gave  results  that  varied  widely.  The  value  of  the  judgments  of 
anv  particular  subject  may  be  measured  (i)  by  their  variation  from  the 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


21 


averages  given  by  the  ten  subjects;  (2)  in  the  case  of  the  repeated  judg¬ 
ments,  by  their  variation  from  the  individual’s  own  average.  The  latter 
test  is  of  value  only  if  one  is  assured  that  memory  has  not  operated  to  keep 
the  arrangements  constant.  This  latter  question  will  need  to  he  considered 
in  some  detail. 

The  mean  variation  of  the  judgments  of  each  individual  subject  from 
the  judgments  of  the  ten  subjects  may  he  obtained  by  getting  the  average 
of  his  variations  from  the  average  position  given  by  the  ten  subjects  for 
each  card  in  the  collection. 

The  ten  subjects  for  D13  gave  the  following  mean  variations  from 
the  averages  for  the  ten  subjects:  Fz,  4.82;  Ld,  5.12;  Bt,  5.38;  Dy,  5.65; 
Wd,  5.70;  Wn,  5.88;  Ck,  6.43:  Ry,  6.61  ;  Gd.  6.74:  Kf,  8.01.  The  mean 
variations  for  D35  were  as  follows:  Ld,  4.98;  Gd,  5.35;  Fz,  5.38;  Bt, 
6.54  :  Wd,  6.62  :  Wn,  6.84  :  Dy,  6.92  :  Ck,  6.93  :  Ry,  7.39  ;  Kf ,  8.32.  It 
will  be  noticed  that  the  individual  m.v.  on  D35  is  in  every  case  but  one  higher 
than  the  m.v.  of  the  same  individual  on  D13.  Fz  and  Ld  give  results  that 
are  closest  to  the  average;  Ck.  Ry,  and  Kf  results  that  are  most  at  variance, 
with  the  average. 

Of  these  ten  subjects.  Bt,  Dy.  Wd,  Ck,  and  Kf  gave  four  other  arrange¬ 
ments  for  D13,  so  that  the  constancy  of  their  judgments  may  be  determined 
by  their  mean  variation  from  their  own  average.  These  m.v.’s  are  as  fol¬ 
lows :  Dy,  2.57:  Wd,  3.43:  Bt,  3.56;  Ck,  5.72;  Kf,  5.93  (see  Table  V). 
Ck  and  Kf  give  the  highest  variation  from  their  own  average;  of  these 
five  subjects  they  also  give  the  highest  variation  from  the  average  of  the 
ten  subjects. 

Dy,  Wd,  Bt.  who  made  five  arrangements  with  D35  as  standard,  gave 
the  following  m.v.'s  from  their  average  for  this  series  :  Dy,  2.66 ;  Bt,  3.43  ; 
Wd,  4.12.  In  this  case  Dy  varies  least  from  her  own  average,  but  varies 
niQst  from  the  average  of  the  ten. 

Turning  now  to  A19,  we  find  the  following  m.v.'s.  for  the  individual 
subjects,  from  the  average  of  all  the  subjects  :  Bd,3.97;  Ty,  4.47 ;  Ld.  4.62  ; 
Dy,  4.66:  Ss,  5.17:  Bh.  5.51:  Wn.  5.54;  Jn.  5.81;  Ck,  6.54:  En.  7.38. 
Dy.  Ss.  Bh.  Jn,  and  En  gave  repeated  judgments  with  the  following  m.v.’s 
on  their  own  average:  En,  1.79;  Dy,  2.66:  Jn,  3.06:  Bh.  3.33:  Ss.  3.91 
(see  Table  \’).  The  most  constant  subject  (En)  is  the  one  who  varies 
most  from  the  average  of  the  ten  subjects. 

Ai2  gave  m.v.’s  as  follows,  for  the  ten  subjects:  Bd,  4.08;  Jn.  4.35: 
Ty,  4.51;  Wn,  4.32;  Ss.  5.35;  Dy,  5.42:  Ld.  3.44:  En,  3.87;  Lc,  6.13: 
Bh,  6.62.  The  m.v.’s  on  an  average  of  five  repeated  judgments  were:  Ss. 
2.99;  Dy,  3.21  ;  En,  3.32;  Jn,  3.43;  Bh.  4.14:  Except  for  the  shift  in  posi¬ 
tion  of  Jn,  the  order  here  corresponds  to  that  found  in  the  m.  v.  from  the 
average  of  the  whole. 

Wells  in  his  experiments  on  judgments  of  preference  found  that  those 
subjects  who  were  most  constant  in  their  judgments  were  also  most  in 
harmony  with  the  judgments  of  others.  To  a  certain  extent  my  results 
point  to  the  same  conclusion;  thus  Kf  and  Ck,  who  are  the  most  incon¬ 
stant  of  the  subjects,  varied  widely  from  the  average  of  all  the  subjects. 
The  most  striking  exception  is  En  in  A 19,  who  gave  the  very  low  m.v.  of 
1.79  from  her  own  average,  but  the  extreme  variation  of  7.38  from  the 
average  of  the  whole.  Constancy  in  judgment  is  not  in  this  instance  evidence 
of  its  representative  character. 

The  IMemory  Factor.  Of  the  nine  subjects  who  made  the  rearrange¬ 
ments.  only  Kf  was  confident  of  remembering  the  positions  formerly  given 
to  cards.  Several  recalled  the  card  placed  first  or  last,  and  were  confident 
that  the  general  grouping  remained  the  same,  although  the  position  of  cards 
within  the  group  might  be  shifted.  Only  one  subject.  Dy  (the  writer  ).  was, 
before  the  experiment,  familiar  with  the  specimens  of  handwriting  used. 


Family  Resemhlaxck  ix  Haxonyritixc. 

In  the  D  collection  she  knew  the  writer  of  each  specimen  and  his  degree 
of  kinship  to  every  other  person  represented.  Her  knowledge  of  Collection 
A  was  much  less  detailed,  being  limited  to  a  general  familiarity  with  the 
specimens  and  a  vague — and  often  inaccurate — memory  of  the  relationships 
involved.  Dy  served  as  subject  for  several  reasons:  (i)  She  wished  to 
iletermine  whether  her  familiarity  with  the  handwriting  and  her  knowledge 
of  the  relationships  involved  would  affect  her  judgments  to  any  degree; 

(2)  she  was  anxious  to  learn  in  general  how  far  she  could  trust  her  own 
judgment  of  a  resemblance  in  handwriting  as  a  representative  judgment; 

(3)  she  wished  to  obtain  an  introspective  account  of  the  situation.  To  avoid' 
a  possible  influencing  of  her  judgment  by  the  judgments  of  others,  tabula¬ 
tion  of  their  judgments  was  commenced  only  after  Dy  had  completed  the 
test  upon  herself. 

Dy's  introspective  record  shows  that  she  definitely  recalled  in  the 
repeated  arrangements  the  cards  placed  first  and  last.  In  general,  there  was 
a  memory  of  the  order  of  groups  rather  than  of  individual  cards.  At  times, 
although  there  had  been  no  recall  of  the  position  of  a  card,  after  the  card 
was  placed  the  position  was  recognized  as  familiar.  After  the  fourth 
grouping,  D13.  Dy  states:  "I  am  beginning  to  recall  positions.  But 
resemblances  are  felt  to  rvry  front  time  to  time,  ii  looked  today  more 
like  13  than  ever  before.  6,  g,  17,  36,  and  14  looked  less  similar  than  before.” 
The  main  point  is  that  the  attitude  in  a  rearrangement  was  never  one  of 
recall ;  Dy  was  aware  at  times  of  introducing  changes  ;  the  feeling  of  resem¬ 
blance  determined  the  judgment,  even  when  the  subject  was  aware  of  the 
change  from  a  previous  judgment.  The  fourth  grouping  for  Aig  carries 
this  introspective  statement:  ‘T  begin  to  feel  my  judgments  crystallizing, 
as  it  were.  I  have  no  definite  memory  of  the  order,  but  I  am  fairly  confident 
of  the  constancy  of  the  positions  of  the  general  groups.  I  believe  my  varia¬ 
tion  will  not  be  great  at  the  end  or  the  beginning,  although  it  may  be  great  in 
the  central  range."  An  inspection  of  Table  V  shows,  however,  that  Dy’s 
fourth  grouping  for  Aig  was  much  less  accurate  than  the  third  grouping. 
The  fourth  grouping  for  A12  bears  this  statement,  “I  believe  that  my  group¬ 
ing  today  differs  ver}"  much  from  that  made  previously,  except  for  the 
positions  assigned  8.  19,  21,  17.  and  27.”  As  a  matter  of  fact.  17  and  27 
were  placed  in  a  position  varying  widely  from  that  of  the  third  grouping. 

Introspectively,  then,  there  is  some  evidence,  in  the  rearrangements, 
of  memory  of  the  order  of  cards,  particularly  of  those  placed  first  and  last. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  is  also  awareness  at  times  of  a  shift  in  judgment ; 
the  remembered  judgment  is  rejected.  Again,  the  introspective  reports  need 
discounting,  as  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  Kf,  who  was  most  confident  of 
her  judgments  being  affected  by  memory,  was  most  inconstant  in  her  judg¬ 
ments.  and  by  the  further  fact  that  Dy’s  definite  reports  on  the  position  of 
certain  cards  in  previous  groupings  is  often  at  fault. 


TABLE  V. 

Comparative  Variability  of  the  Individual  Se  rics. 


Series 


Standard  i  Subject 


I 

II 

III 

IV 

V  -  Av. 

1)13 

Dy 

3.31 

2.92 

2.25 

2.00 

2.37 

2.57 

“ 

Ck 

0.36 

r>.7(i 

5.08 

5.10 

5.71 

5.72 

“ 

Bt 

3.82 

3.30 

3.70 

3.00 

3.24 

3.56 

“ 

Wd 

4.94 

2.07 

3.38 

3.36 

2.82 

3.43 

Kf 

5.91 

5.32 

.5.80 

6.27 

6.37 

5.93 

.419 

Dy 

4.31 

2.14 

1.65 

2.69 

2.40 

2.65 

Kn 

1.90 

1.73 

1.32 

1.98 

1.91 

1.79 

“ 

Ss 

.'1.17 

3.84 

2.62 

4.39 

3.52 

3.91 

Bh 

4.71 

2.97 

2.. 52 

3.25 

3.24 

3.33 

Jn 

3.00 

3.30 

2.99 

2.69 

3.16 

3.06 

Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


23 


Table  V  gives  the  mean  variability  of  each  series  or  arrangement  from 
the  average  of  the  five.  When  not  stated  otherwise,  the  time  interval  be¬ 
tween  the  series  was  one  week.  Between  I  and  II,  Ck(Di3),  there  was  an 
interval  of  two  weeks  and  between  IV  and  V,  Kf(Di3)  an  interval  of  two 
months.  Between  IV  and  V,  Dy(Ai9)  there  was  a  time-lapse  of  two  weeks  ; 
between  I  and  II,  En(Ai9),  two  weeks,  and  between  IV  and  V^,  three 
weeks;  there  was  a  lapse  of  two  weeks  each  between  I  and  II  and  between 
III  and  IV  for  Bh(Ai9). 

I  cannot  see  that  these  irregularities  in  the  time-interval  have  affected 
the  results  in  any  particular  way,  as  they  probably  would,  had  memory 
entered  to  any  degree. 

From  the  table  it  appears  that  the  first  series  varies  most  widely  from 
the  average  except  for  Kf,  En,  and  Jn,  and  this  fact  gives  some  justifica¬ 
tion  to  the  idea  that  memory  has  been  influential  in  the  rearrangements. 
But  there  is  no  approximation  to  the  average,  series  by  series,  as  one  wovdd 
anticipate  if  this  were  true.  The  most  accurate  series  for  Dy  is  the  fourth; 
for  Ck,  the  fourth ;  for  Bt,  the  fifth ;  for  Wd,  the  second ;  for  Kf,  the 
second;  for  Dy(Ai9),  the  third;  for  En,  Ss,  and  Bh,  the  third;  for  Jn, 
the  fourth. 

Apparently  memory  has  not  affected  the  results  seriously.  There  is, 
however,  some  reason  to  believe  that  familiarity  with  the  writing  under 
consideration  is  favorable  to  the  perception  of  likeness  and  difference. 

The  first  and  last  members  of  the  series  should  show  most  evidently 
the  effect  of  memory,  if  operative.  Tables  VI  and  VII  give  the  combined 
variations  for  each  set  of  five  consecutive  positions  for  D13,  D35,  A19, 
and  Ai2,  obtained  from  the  average  for  five  arrangements  by  each  of  five 
subjects;  it  gives  also  the  average  for  the  five  subjects  in  the  repeated 
arrangements  and  the  average  for  ten  subjects,  one  arrangement  each. 


T.\BLE  VI. 

Av.  M.V.  for  each  Set  of  Five  Consecutive  Variations 


Standard 

Subject 

Positions. 

1-5 

5-10 

10-15 

15-20 

20-25 

25-30 

30-35 

32-37 

D13 

Dy 

1.77 

2.56 

2.99 

4.40 

3.28 

2.13 

1.74 

1.21 

D35 

“ 

1.10 

2.94 

2.97 

2.71 

4.27 

3.36 

2.08 

1.28 

D13 

Ck 

3.31 

6.70 

7.66 

8.72 

6.03 

4.54 

4.72 

4.13 

D13 

Bt 

1.98 

3.60 

4.28 

4.72 

4.30 

3.42 

3.95 

2.54 

D35 

“ 

2.05 

3.84 

3.88 

4.19 

4.32 

5.39 

1.81 

1.47 

D13 

Wd 

2.25 

3.36 

4.30 

4.73 

4.99 

3.15 

1.95 

1..32 

D35 

“ 

2.24 

4.08 

5.64 

4.. 54 

4.98 

3.38 

4.86 

2.86 

D13 

Kf 

2.52 

8.32 

7.46 

5.87 

4.97 

6.83 

6.43 

5.10 

D13 

Av. 

2.36 

4.91 

5.33 

5.68 

4.71 

4.01 

3.75 

2.86 

D35 

Av. 

i;79 

3.62 

4.16 

3.81 

4.52 

4.04 

2.91 

1.87 

D13 

Av.  for  10 

4.72 

6.58 

6.50 

7.43 

7.03 

5.94 

4.48 

3.62 

D3.5 

Av.  for  10 

5.04 

7.48 

7.14 

8.01 

6.82 

5.99 

6.08 

5.13 

-’4 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


TABLE  VII. 


,4v.  M.V.  for  esich  Set  of  Five  Consecutive  Variations. 


Avorago 

Standard 

Positions 

1-5 

5-10 

10-15 

15-20 

20-25 

25-30 

29-34 

A19 

Dy 

1.21 

1.71 

3.08 

4.18 

4.07 

2.31 

2.09 

A12 

2.0s 

5.13 

4.94 

3.48 

3.48 

1.86 

1.05 

A19 

Kn 

l.!)2 

1.90 

3.73 

1.74 

2.09 

1.28 

.56 

A12 

‘  ‘ 

.93 

1.74 

3.58 

5.88 

5.01 

2.76 

3.48 

A19 

Ss 

3.96 

4.19 

4.96 

4.89 

2.78 

3.07 

2.36 

A12 

“ 

2.24 

3.58 

3.66 

3.50 

3.33 

2.25 

2.52 

A19 

Bh 

2.35 

3.26 

3.20 

4.06 

3.93 

5.24 

1.18 

A12 

“ 

2.0s 

4.97 

4.64 

5.29 

4.56 

5.17 

2.68 

A19 

Jn 

4.43 

4.21 

4.. 54 

3.44 

1.71 

1.81 

1.05 

A12 

4.52 

4.52 

,3.18 

6.70 

3.05 

1.56 

.62 

A 19 

Av. 

2.69 

3.05 

3.90 

3.66 

2.91 

2.74 

1.44 

A12 

Av. 

2.37 

3.98 

4.00 

4.97 

3.88 

2.72 

2.07 

A19 

Av .  for  10 

5.05 

6.19 

5.82 

6.41 

5.38 

4.87. 

3.44 

A12 

Av.  for  10 

4.71 

5.05 

6.23 

8.44 

5.41 

3.09 

4.11 

It  is  evident  that  the  variations  are,  on  the  whole,  greater  in  the  middle 
range  than  for  the  first  and  last  positions.  In  the  case  of  the  repeated 
judgments,  this  is  exactly  what  we  should  expect  from  the  operation  of 
memory.  It  is  just  as  evident,  however,  in  the  case  of  the  variations  for 
the  ten  subjects  (except  in  A19),  where  there  were  no  repeated  judg¬ 
ments.  The  introspective  records  show  that  it  is  much  more  difficult  to 
place  cards  in  the  middle  range  than  in  the  earlier  and  later  positions,  so 
that  this  fact  accounts  for  the  greater  uniformity  in  respect  to  these  posi¬ 
tions  as  plausibly  as  does  the  assumption  that  there  is  a  remembrance  of 
the  cards  placed  first  and  last.  It  is,  however,  certain  that  two  or  three 
subjects,  at  least,  definitely  recalled  the  cards  that  had  in  a  previous  group¬ 
ing  been  placed  first  or  last,  but  this  memory  was  in  every  case  checked 
by  a  new  judgment  of  'likeness. 

Tables  VI  and  VII  show  that  the  judgment  of  unlikeness  is,  on  the 
whole,  an  easier  one  to  make  than  the  judgment  of  likeness.  There  is 
considerable  agreement  among  subjects  as  to  the  handwriting  most  unlike 
a  given  specimen.  Some  individual  differences  in  this  respect  come  out 
to  a  striking  degree.  Most  noticeable  is  the  case  of  Jn,  whose  judgments 
of  difference  were  uniform,  but  whose  judgments  of  likeness  were  very 
inconstant.  No  doubt  we  have  here  an  individual  trait  of  some  importance. 

The  following  facts  with  reference  to  the  subjects  may  be  emphasized 
in  a  summary.  The  subjects  showed  considerable  difference  in  their  ability 
to  pass  judgments  on  similarity  in  handwriting,  a  fact  which,  of  course, 
might  have  been  anticipated.  Kf  and  Ck  varied  most  widely  from  the 
average  of  the  ten  subjects  and  from  their  own  average.  They  were  the 
poorest  subjects  found.  En,  who  is  very  constant  in  her  judgments,  varied 
in  one  instance  widely  from  the  average.  Jn,  who  perceives  differences 
readily,  is  much  slower  in  a  perception  of  likeness.  Bt,  Wd,  Dy,  Ss,  and 
Bh  gave  average  results.  Bt  passed  her  judgments  so  rapidly  as  to  be 
a  valuable  subject  for  this  reason  alone;  Bh  was  exceedingly  deliberate. 
Dy’s  knowledge  of  relationships  probably  influenced  her  somewhat  in  pass¬ 
ing  her  judgments  but,  if  so,  in  such  a  way  as  to  bring  them  into  greater 
harmony  with  those  of  the  average,  a  result  which  can  be  explained  only 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


25 


on  the  supposition  that  a  resemblance  actually  exists  between  the  hand¬ 
writing  of  certain  relatives. 

5.  Degrees  of  Resemblance. 

In  discussing  the  resemblances  in  handwriting  brought  out  by  the  test. 
Collections  H  and  L  will  be  utilized  as  well  as  Collections  D  and  A. 

(a)  collection  d. 

'I'he  discussion  of  the  resemblances  found  in  this  collection,  which 
has  already  been  described,  will  be  based  mainlv  upon  the  arrangements 
made  when  D13  was  used  as  the  standard  for  comparison.  A  complete 
study  would  involve,  as  stated  before,  the  use  in  turn  of  each  specimen 
in  the  collection  as  the  standard. 

The  most  remarkable  resemblance  found  under  the  conditions  of  the 
test  is  the  resemblance  between  13  and  10.  (See  Plate  II,  a.)  A  reference 
to  Table  I  shows  that  10  received  2.1  when  the  positions  given  it  by  ten 
subjects  were  averaged.  The  actual  positions  given  were  as  follows:  i,  i. 
I,  I.  I,  I,  2.  4.  4.  5.  Each  of  the  five  subjects  who  repeated  the  arrange¬ 
ments  placed  10  first  in  their  first  grouping;  three  of  them  made  no  change 
in  its  position  in  the  other  four  arrangements ;  Wd  in  her  third  arrange¬ 
ment  shifted  it  to  the  third  position,  but  restored  it  to  the  first  place  in 
the  fifth  grouping;  Ck.  one  of  the  most  unreliable  subjects,  gave  the  most 
variable  judgments  on  10,  with  a  final  order  of  4  on  an  average  position 
of  y  (m.v..  3.6).  That  the  resemblance  betw’een  10  and  13  is  a  much 
closer  one  than  that  existing  between  13  and  any  other  specimen  is  shown 
by  the  distinct  isolation  of  10  in  the  table  that  gives  the  average  positions. 
The  same  distinct  break  occurs  in  the  records  of  Dy,  Bt.  and,  in  a  lesser 
degree,  in  the  record  of  Kf. 

The  relationship  represented  is  that  of  a  paternal  half-bfother.  The 
resemblance  is  a  significant  one,  since  it  cannot  be  attributed  to  a  similarity 
in  educational  and  social  environment.  13  is  more  than  twenty  years  older 
than  10.  and  left  the  home  when  10  was  a  little  child.  The  education  of 
13  and  10  was  very  different. 

4^  (Plate  II.  a)  takes  second  place  in  resemblance  to  13  on  the  follow¬ 
ing  jiositions :  i.  i.  3.  4.  3.  6.  6.  ii.  20  (av..  6.8.  m.v..  4.32).  In  the 
repeated  arrangements,  it  takes  first  place  for  Ck.  third  for  Dy.  seventh  for 
Bt  and  Kf.  and  eighth  for  Wd.  There  can  be  no  question  that  a  resem¬ 
blance  exists  between  13  and  45.  although  a  less  noticeable  resemblance 
than  that  found  for  13  and  10.  45  is  a  paternal  aunt  of  13  and  more  than 
twenty  years  older.  As  before,  the  educational  and  social  environment  of 
the  two  has  been  very  different. 

The  card  (7)  receiving  the  third  position  is  again  separated  from  the 
preceding  one  by  a  distinct  break.  (Plate  11.  b. )  The  positions  given  it 
were  2.  4.  5.  6.  6,  9.  10.  ii,  14,  17  (av..  8.4.  m.v..  3.8).  On  the  repeated 
arrangements,  it  takes  second  place  with  Kf.  third  with  Ck.  fourteenth 
with  Dy.  sixteenth  with  Bt.  seventeenth  with  Wd.  It  should  be  recalled 
that  Ck  and  Kf  are  less  reliable  judges  than  the  other  three.  It  is  inter¬ 
esting  to  note  also  that  Bt,  Dy  and  Wd  place  7  at  a  greater  distance  from 
13  in  the  rearrangements  than  they  did  in  first  trial.  7  is  no  relation  to 
13  or  45,  Init  is  the  mother  of  10. 

The  fourth  position  goes  to  53  (av..  10.  m.v..  7.6).  (Plate  II.  a.) 
The  very  high  m.v.  is  due  to  the  great  divergence  in  judgment  of  Kf.  who 
places  53  in  the  thirty-first  position.  In  the  repeated  judgments  Kf  alters 
her  judgment,  placing"  53  in  turn  in  the  thirteenth,  ninth,  twenty-second,  and 
second  position,  a  statement  which  shows  how  little  reliance  can  be  given 


26 


Family  Resemulance  in  Handwriting. 


to  Kf‘s  judgment.  In  the  repeated  judgments,  53  takes  second  position 
in  Dy’s  average,  fourth  in  Bt's  and  Wd’s,  sixth  in  Ck’s,  and  ninth  in  Kf’s. 
As  six  of  the  ten  subjects  placed  53  before  7,  it  probably  represents  a 
greater  resemblance  than  does  7.  53  is  half-brother  of  13,  brother  of  10, 

nephew  to  45,  son  of  7. 

20  (fifth  position)  is  paternal  cousin  of  13,  lo,  and  53,  and  daughter 
of  4>  The  high  m.v.  was  caused  bv  the  divergent  judgment  of  Ck.  (Plate 
II,  b.) 

5  (si.xth  position)  was  written  by  the  same  person  as  53,  but  five  years 
earlier.  That  53  and  5  should  be  ranked  so  nearly  together  witnesses  the 
general  value  of  the  grouping.  The  change  in  5’s  style  of  writing  during 
the  five  years  will  he  mentioned  later.  The  high  variation  again  is  due  to 
Kf’s  divergence  in  judgment.  (Plate  II,  b.) 

24  (seventh  position)  is  a  paternal  cousin  to  13,  10,  53,  20  and  niece 
of  45.  (Plate  II,  b.) 

22  (eighth  position)  is  half-brother  to  13,  brother  to  10  and  53,  cousin 
to  20  and  24,  nephew  to  45,  son  to  7. 

2  (ninth  position)  is  no  relation  to  any  of  the  above. 

4  (tenth  position)  was  written  by  the  same  person  as  13,  fifteen  years 
before.  It  is  a  much  more  conventional  hand  than  13.  Two  subjects  placed 
it  second  in  likeness  to  13. 

It  does  not  seem  worth  while  discussing  the  degrees  of  resemblance 
beyond  the  tenth  position,  so  great  were  the  individual  variations  within 
the  middle  range.  Any  one  who  is  interested  may  consult  Tables  I  and  II 
for  the  complete  record.  A  further  table  was  prepared  for  the  first  ten 
cards,  in  which  an  average  was  obtained  from  the  six  mean  positions, 
the  two  highest  and  the  two  lowest  judgments  being  rejected.  This  table 
is  not  given,  as  the  only  shift  in  position  that  results  from  such  a  treatment 
of  the  judgments  is  the  placing  of  53  before  7,  a  change  suggested  for  other 
reasons.  Such  a  table  shows  a  considerable  lowering  of  the  average  posi¬ 
tion  and  a  great  reduction  in  the  m.v. 

A  cut  giving  the  standard  and  the  specimens  arranged  within  seven 
places  will  enable  everyone  to  estimate  for  himself  the  extent  of  the  resem¬ 
blances.  (See  Plate  II,  a  and  b.) 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


27 


(5-i} 


fu)  '  ’ 


Plate  II,  a. 


Plativ  II,  b. 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


29 


Plate  HI. 


Plate  III  gives  an  additional  illustration  to  show  the  essential  similarity 
between  the  hands  of  10  and  53.  These  two  are  brothers,  very  slightly 
different  in  age.  53  is  the  better  penman  of  the  two.  .\t  one  time,  about 
six  years  ago,  he  took  lessons  in  commercial  penmanship,  lessons  which 
resulted  in  an  improved  but  conventionalized  hand  (See  No.  5).  With  the 
lapse  of  time  he  is  returning  to  his  old  hand, — a  fact  which  shows  how 
deep-seated  the  natural  tendencies  are. 

Although  it  does  not  seem  worth  while  discussing  the  arrangement 
of  cards  in  the  middle  range,  the  extreme  dissimilarities  are  very  significant. 

The  tables  show  that  i,  ii,  19,  49.  46,  and  50  are  distinctly  unlike  13. 
No.  ly  is  not  related  to  13,  but  the  others  include  the  father,  half-sisters, 
paternal  uncle,  and  paternal  cousin  of  13. 

I  was  so  uniformly  grouped  by  itself  as  an  individual  hand  that  it 
seemed  desirable  to  obtain  a  number  of  arrangements  in  which  it  should 
be  used  as  the  standard  for  comparison.  Eight  arrangements  were  obtained, 
one  each  from  Bt,  Dy,  Wd,  Kf,  Ck,  Ld.  Gh.  Fz.  The  results  confirm  the 
declarations  of  the  subjects  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  use  this  hand  as  a 
standard.  Twenty  of  the  cards,  for  instance,  were  given  an  average  posi¬ 
tion  between  16  and  20.  One  very  evident  resemblance  was,  however, 
determined,  a  resemblance  to  46  (sister).  This  card  was  ranked  as  follows: 
I.  I,  I,  I,  2,  2.  7,  i7(Ck).  14  (maternal  cousin)  also  shows  a  resemblance 

and  receives  second  position,  but  it  is  separated  from  46  by  a  distinct 
break.  The  other  jiositions  seem  not  worth  discussing,  so  closely  are  thev 
massed.  It  is,  however,  significant  that  3  (maternal  grandmother),  which 
held  twenty-ninth  position  in  the  grouping  for  13.  has  now  been  advanced 
to  the  eighth  place.  Plate  I\'  gives  cuts  of  1,  46.  and  14. 


30 


Family  RESEJtRLANCL  in  Handwriting. 


Plate  IV. 


Familv  Resemhlance  in  Handwriting. 


31 


The  specimens  found  to  be  most  unlike  i  were  50,  19,  30,  and  11. 

Six  arrangements  were  made  with  ii  as  standard,  one  each  by  Wd, 
l)y,  Bt,  Ck,  Ld,  and  Gh.  As  was  found  true  in  the  case  of  i.  so  here  there 
is  a  massing  of  results.  One  resemblance  comes  out  definitely:  8  (a  daugh¬ 
ter)  takes  first  place. 

Eight  specimens  were  introduced  into  the  collection,  the  writers  of 
which  were  related  to  none  of  the  family  group  under  consideration.  One 
of  these,  35,  was  used  as  a  standard  of  comparison  in  a  series  that  included 
arrangements  by  10  different  subjects  and  repeated  arrangements  by  three 
of  these  subjects.  It  has  already  been  shown  that  the  subjective  factor  is 
shown  to  be  greater  in  such  a  series  than  in  the  one  in  which  D13  was  used 
as  standard,  and  that,  too,  although  D35  is  not  a  highly  individual  hand. 
One  specimen  (30)  was  written  by  a  related  person,  a  sister.  30  stands 
tenth  in  the  table  of  averaged  positions  for  35,  whereas  in  Table  I  it  stands 
twenty-sixth.  A  slight  resemblance  exists  between  30  and  35.  No  card 
resembles  35  as  10  did  13,  the  first  position  going  to  2  (a  writing  that  is 
found  to  resemble  many  others)  on  an  average  of  6  (m.v.,  3.8).  The 
next  two  cards  both  receive  an  average  position  of  10.5. 

2,  6,  9,  and  17  constitute  another  family  group,  consisting  of  mother 
(6),  daughter  (17)  and  two  sons  (9  and  2).  Both  9  and  2  resemble  many 
other  hands;  17,  who  is  left-handed,  has  been  taught  to  write  with  her 
right.  Table  I  shows  some  tendency  of  subjects  to  group  these  specimens 
together.  The  positions  received  were  ninth  for  2,  eleventh  for  9,  twelfth 
for  17;  6,  however,  occupies  the  twenty-seventh  position.  With  17  as 
standard,  eight  arrangements  were  made :  2  took  second  place  on  the  aver¬ 
aged  positions:  9  took  the  tenth  position;  6,  the  twelfth  position. 

32  and  44  were  father  and  son.  The  son  writes  an  unformed  hand, 
the  father  a  highly  finished  one.  The  character  of  the  two  hands  is  similar. 
They  hold  in  Table  I  the  seventeenth  and  twenty-first  places. 

From  a  study  of  the  results  of  the  test,  the  following  conclusions  are 
drawn  relative  to  the  character  of  the  handwriting  of  the  ten  brothers  and 
sisters  around  whom  the  collection  centers.  Two  of  the  brothers  (10  and 
53)  write  very  similar  hands,  a  hand  that,  in  turn,  is  very  like  that  of 
several  relatives  on  the  paternal  side.  The  writing  of  a  third  brother  (22) 
also  resembles  the  same  general  type.  The  hand  of  the  fourth  brother  (21) 
was  not  placed  by  the  test.  It  takes  sixteenth  place  in  the  table  of  averages 
and  seventh,  tenth,  seventeenth,  nineteenth,  and  twenty-third  place  in  the 
rejieated  series,  so  that  no  conclusion  is  warranted. 

The  handwriting  of  at  least  two  of  the  sisters  (i  and  46)  is  very 
unlike  the  paternal  hand ;  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  this  writing  resem¬ 
bles  that  of  maternal  relatives.  Of  the  other  sisters,  48  is  an  unformed 
hand  and  42  an  unpracticed  one,  neither  of  which  can  be  placed. 

There  is  good  reason  for  grouping  the  writing  of  two  other  sisters 
(15  and  25)  with  i  and  46.  It  will  be  noticed  that  25  and  26  are  con¬ 
tiguous  in  Table  1.  26  is  written  by  a  maternal  cousin,  the  same  as  the 
penman  of  14;  an  interval  of  twelve  years  separates  the  two  writings. 
At  the  time  of  writing  the  earlier  specimen  the  cousin  was  near  the  age 
of  25.  That  there  exists  a  close  resemblance  between  the  writing  of 
these  two  cousins  has  frequently  been  noticed  in  the  family. 

The  stages  that  mark  the  development  of  the  handwriting  of  the  pen¬ 
men  of  I,  14.  and  15  are  interesting.  In  each  case  there  have  been  striking 
shifts  in  the  character  of  the  hand;  the  handwriting  of  none  of  them 
“formed"  early.  A  series  of  specimens  obtained  at  intervals  of  some  years 
shows  that  the  writing  of  15  has  at  different  periods  resembled  that  of  i 
(the  elder  of  the  two)  at  the  same  period,  although  there  is  very  little 
resemblance  between  their  hands  at  the  present  time.  The  present  hand- 


^2  Family  Rhsicmblanck  in  Handwriting. 

writing  of  15  resembles  14.  The  two  latter  hands'  are  more 'conventional 
and  formal  today  than  they  \vere  at  an  earlier  period. 

A  tendency  toward  hackhand  writing  is  pronounced  in  the  writing  of 
I.  46,  15  (at  an  early  period),  and  14.  This  tendency  in  the  case  of  all 
except  t  may  he  due  to  the  fact  that  they,  w'ere  taught  vertical  writing. 
The  tendency,  however,  does  not  appear  in  the  writing  of  10  and  53 
(brothers),  who  had  similar  instruction. 

The  handwriting  of  48,  the  youngest  of  the  ten,  is,  apparently,  quite 
different  from  that  of  the  others.  Although  it  is  not  yet  formed,  it  does 
not  show  the  tendencies  noticeable  in  the  other  hands  during  the  formative 
period.  None  of  ten  brothers  and  sisters,  with  the  exception  of  53,  would 
be  called  a  fluent  or  good  penman.  53's  hand  was  “formed”  at  an  early 
period.  He  is  strongly  motor  in  type. 

Although  the  handwriting  of  these  brothers  and  sisters  may  he  grouped 
in  the  manner  suggested,  it  is  difficult  to  place  the  handwriting  of  their 
parents.  The  father's  hand  is  a  very  individual  one,  and  one  which  his 
children  greatly  admired.  It  is  not,  however,  repeated  except,  to  a  slight 
degree,  in  the  writing  of  one  daughter,  half-sister  to  the  ten.  The  mother's 
writing  (Plate  II,  h,  7)  was  grouped  with  the  writing  of  her  sons  and  their 
relatives  on  the  paternal  side.  No  reason  for  this  can  be  given,  although 
a  similar  thing  has  been  noticed  in  the  physical  likenesses  in  the  family, 
in  that  the  children  who  are  said  most  to  resemble  the  mother  are  also 
thought  to  be  most  like  the  father's  family. 

‘(b)  collection  a. 

This  collection  has  already  been  described.  The  discussion  of  the 
resemblances  it  shows  will  be  based  upon  the  arrangements  made  with  A19 
as  standard  for  comparison.  (See  Plate  V,  a.)  No  resemblance  as  striking 
as  that  between  D13  and  Dio  was  found,  but  the  grouping  within  ten  places 
was.  on  the  whole,  more  satisfactory  than  in  the  preceding  case.  Table 
III,  X,  gives  the  average  results  for  the  ten  subjects,  one  arrangement  each. 

27  was  placed  first  three  times;  17,  first,  twice;  2,  22,  25,  ii,  10,  first,, 
once  each.  In  Table  III,  2  holds  the  first  place  with  a  position  of  5.7  (m.v. 
3.64),  averaged  from  i,  2,  2,  2,  4,  5,  6,  10,  ii,  14.  In  the  repeated  arrange¬ 
ments,  2  is  placed  first  by  Ss,  fifth  by  Dy,  En,  and  Jn,  and  twenty-fifth  by 
Bh,  although  in  her  first  judgment  Bh  placed  it  fifth.  2  is  a  son  of  19,  natu¬ 
rally  left-handed,  but  trained  to  use  his  right  in  writing.  (Plate  V,  a.) 

25  holds  second  place  in  the  table  (position  6,  m.v.  3.8),  separated 
from  2  by  a  narrow  margin  on  the  following  positions:  i,  3,  3,  3,  3,  4,  7,  7, 
10,  19.  In  the  repeated  arrangements  it  is  placed  second  liy  Ss,  seventh  by 
Jn,  ninth  by  Dy,  thirteenth  by  En,  twenty-seventh  by  Bh,  who,  however, 
placed  it  third  in  her  first  arrangement.  23  is  a  daughter  of  19  aud  a  sister 
of  2.  ^  (Plate  V,  a.) 

The  third  place  went  to  27  (position  8.5.  m.v.  7.2).  In  the  repeated 
arrangements,  it  takes  first  place  for  Dy  and  En,  but  stands  far  down  in 
the  table  for  the  other  three  subjects,  Ss  departing  widely  from  his  first 
judgment  on  it  (first  place)  in  the  subsequent  arrangements.  27  is  grandson 
to  19,  nephew  to  2,  son  to  25.  (Plate  V,  a.) 

10  takes  fourth  place  (position  8.8,  m.v.  5.20).  It  is  separated  from 
27  by  a  very  narrow  margin,  while  the  m.v.  is  smaller.  In  the  repeated 
arrangements,  it  receives  the  fourth  place  for  Bh  and  Jn,  tenth  for  Dy, 
eleventh  for  Ss,  twelfth  for  En.  10  is  daughter  to  19,  sister  to  2  and  25, 
aunt  to  27.  (Plate  V,  b.) 

The  fifth  place  belongs  to  4  (position  9.3,  m.v.  5.42.)  In  the  repeated 
arrangements,  it  is  placed  first  by  Bh,  sixth  by  Dy,  eighth  by  Ss,  ninth  by 
En,  eightheenth  by  Jn.  4  is  a  grandson  of  19,  son  to  10,  nephew  to  2  and 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


33 


25,  first  cousin  to  27.  The  close  resemblance  of  4  to  19  may  be  inferred 
from  the  fact  that  a  schoolmate  of  4’s,  seeing  specimen  ig,  stated  con¬ 
fidently  that  it  was  written  by  4.  (Plate  V,  b.) 

21  takes  the  sixth  place  (position  g.8,  m.v.  3.76).  In  the  repeated  ar¬ 
rangements  21  is  third  for  Ss,  fourth  for  Dy,  eighth  for.En,  ninth  for  Bh, 
thirteenth  for  Jn.  21  is  nephew  to  19  and  a  DOUBLE  first  cousin  to  2, 
25,  10.  (Plate  V,  b. ) 

The  seventh  place  is  held  by  22  (position  10.3,  m.v.  6.52).  22  is  second 
for  Dy  in  the  repeated  judgments,  third  for  En,  eighth  for  Jn,  thirteenth 
for  Ss,  twenty-second  for  Bh.  22  is  grandson  to  19,  son  of  25,  nephew  to 
2  and  10,  brother  to  27,  cousin  to  4.  (Plate  V,  b.) 

31  takes  the  eighth  position  (position  10.3,  m.v.  6.66).  In  the  repeated 
judgments,  31  is  second  for  En,  fourth  for  Ss,  eighth  for  Dy  and  Bh,  twelfth 
for  Jn.  31  is  niece  to  19,  first  cousin  to  2,  25,  10,  and  21. 

The  ninth  position  is  held  by  17  (10.5,  m.v.  8.60).  The  variation  on 
this  card  is  very  high.  In  the  repeated  arrangements,  it  is  second  for  Bh 
and  Jn,  third  for  Dy,  nineteenth  for  Ss,  and  twenty-seventh  for  En.  17 
is  sop  to  19,  brother  of  2,  25,  10,  uncle  to  27,  4,  and  22,  first  cousin  to  21 
and  31.  (Plate  V,  c. ) 

20  holds  the  tenth  position  (11.7,  m.v.  5.44).  In  the  repeated  arrange¬ 
ments  20  is  first  for  Jn,  third  for  Bh,  sixth  for  En,  ninth  for  Ss,  twelfth 
for  Dy.  20  is  niece  to  19,  cousin  to  2,  25,  10,  and  21. 

As  before,  it  does  not  seem  worth  while  discussing  the  cards  that  fall 
below  the  tenth  position  in  the  table  of  averages.  It  is  interesting  to  note 
that  none  of  the  eleven  jiersons  who  were  unrelated  to  ig  appear  in  this 
table  within  the  first  ten  places. 

While,  as  it  was  stated  before,  there  is  no  one  resemblance  to  Aig 
as  uniformly  perceived  as  was  the  resemblance  of  Dio  to  D13,  the  ten 
cards  chosen  as  most  like  19  are,  as  a  whole,  more  like  it  than  the  ten 
cards  chosen  for  D13.  To  a  certain  extent,  the  resemblance  to  19  on  tbe 
part  of  many  cards  introduced  variation  in  the  judgments.  Thus,  the  speci¬ 
mens  placed  in  the  first  ten  positions  by  Dy  on  the  average  of  the  repeated 
arrangements  are,  with  one  exception,  just  those  that  hold  the  first  ten 
positions  in  Table  III,  but  in  a  very  different  order.  If  one  uses  the  table 
in  which  the  four  extreme  judgments  have  been  thrown  out,  the  ten  corre¬ 
spond  exactly.  A 19  is  a  more  individual  hand  than  D13.  It  is  the  hand 
of  a  very  old  man  (eighty-four  years).  It  is  evident  that  different  observers 
noticed  different  points  concerning  it.  Thus,  on  the  one  hand,  there  is  a 
resemblance  to  22  and  27  (grandsons)  and,  on  the  other  hand,  a  diff'erent 
resemblance  to  2  and  21  (son  and  nephew),  and  a  yet  diff’erent  one  to  25, 
10,  and  4  (daughters  and  grandson). 

The  resemblances  given  above  include  resemblances  between  a  father 
(19),  two  sons  and  two  daughters,  three  grandsons,  and  two  nieces.  There 
was  also  included  in  the  collection  the  writing  of  one  other  son  and  daughter, 
five  granddaughters,  three  nieces,  two  grandnieces  and  one  grandnephew. 

Table  III  shows  that  ii  (son)  and  28  (daughter)  occupied  respec¬ 
tively  the  thirteenth  and  fifteenth  places.  The  variation  on  ii  is  very  great. 
One  observer  gave  it  first  place  in  the  likeness  to  19:  in  the  repeated  jurlg- 
ments  Dy  and  Jn  place  within  the  first  ten;  and  in  the  table  of  averages 
from  the  six  mean  positions,  the  four  extreme  judgments  being  thrown  out, 
it  occupies  the  tenth  position.  Its  general  character  is  very  similar  to  the 
other  specimens  of  this  family  group.  ( See  Plate  c. )  28  is  a  much 

less  inclividual  hand  than  that  of  the  other  brothers  and  sisters.  One 
cannot  claim  a  distinct  resemblance  to  19,  but  one  would  certainly  group 
it  with  25  and  10.  (See  Plate  V,  c.) 


34 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


w 


Go-?--  -jLf- 


>rw-  S  H  dMi^- 
I’l)  ‘^UXJ,-  l^Jt.. 


Plate  V,  a. 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


35 


) 


Plate  V,  b. 


Family  Resemllanck  in  Handivritinc. 


That  the  w'riting  of  the  six  sons  and  daughters  of  ig  should  show  such 
a  resemblance  is  striking,  as  is  also  the  subgrouping  of  the  writing  into  ( i ) 
those  of  the  brothers  (2,  17,  ii),  and  (2)  those  of  the  sisters  (25,  10,  28). 
The  general  effect  of  these  two  groups  is  very  different,  due  partly  to  the 
great  difference  in  pressure,  but  there  is  something  similar  in  the  texture 
of  the  writing  as  well  as  in  the  formation  of  letters.  We  find  this  hand 
repeated  again  in  the  writing  of  three  paternal  cousins,  with  again,  a  notice¬ 
able  difference  between  the  masculine  and  the  feminine  hand. 

The  only  specimens  of  the  writing  on  the  maternal  side  found  in  the 
collection  is  that  of  35  (maternal  uncle),  29  and  36  (maternal  cousins)  and 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


37 


21  (maternal  and  paternal  cousin).  21  has  already  been  discussed.  35 
and  29  hold  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  places  in  Table  III.  They  are  certainly 
not  strongly  dissimilar  to  some  of  the  hands  preceding  them ;  they  resemble 
the  handwriting  of  the  daughters  rather  than  that  of  the  sons. 

The  handwriting  of  three  grandsons  was  found  to  resemble  that  of 
19.  Although  specimens  of  the  writing  of  five  granddaughters  (i,  7,  13, 
30,  33)  were  included  in  the  collection,  not  one  of  these  found  its  way  into 
the  group  centering  around  19.  i,  7,  13,  and  33  show  strongly  the  effect  of 
instruction  in  vertical  handwriting,  with  a  strong  tendency  to  backhand  in 
I,  13,  and  33.  7  and  33  are  too  stereotyped  to  be  individual;  i  and  13  are 
more  individual  and  very  similar.  It  is  noticeable  how  much  more  con¬ 
ventional  are  13  and  i  than  27  and  4,  the  writing  of  younger  brothers. 
The  test  did  not  place  30,  which  is  a  rounded  hand,  slightly  resembling  10 
(mother). 

Collection  A  centered  around  the  writing  of  1,4,  and  30.  It  has  already 
been  noticed  that  4  resembles  10  (mother)  and  19  (grandfather),  i  resem¬ 
bles  13  (maternal  cousin)  ;  30  is  not  placed. 

Six  paternal  relatives  of  i,  4,  and  30  contributed  specimens  to  the 
collection:  9  (uncle).  8  (aunt),  3,  14,  23  and  26  (paternal  cousins).  14 
and  23  (unformed  hands)  show  instruction  in  vertical  writing  and  are 
grouped  with  i,  7,  and  13.  3,  23,  and  26  show  a  tendency  to  backhand 
which  is  pronounced  in  3.  There  are,  however,  no  strong  resemblances. 
3  and  8  were  very  individual  hands  and  fall  well  toward  the  close  of  every 
arrangement. 

The  most  unusual  hand  of  the  whole  collection  is  5,  which  stands  thirty- 
fourth  in  Table  III  and  occupies  the  same  position  in  the  repeated  arrange¬ 
ments  in  every  case  except  that  of  Bh,  who  places  it  in  the  thirty-second 
place  with  3  and  8  in  the  closing  positions.  5  is  a  highly  artificial  hand. 

A  series  of  judgments  was  obtained  with  12  as  standard  for  com¬ 
parison.  12  is  related  to  14  (son),  but  to  no  one  else  represented  in  the 
collection.  With  12  as  standard,  the  subjective  element  was  more  pro¬ 
nounced  than  when  A19  was  standard,  ii  took  first  place  on  a  position  of 
7.2  (m.v.  5.58).  It  is  noticeable  that  ii  is  thirteenth  in  Table  III,  with  12 
occupying  the  next  position.  On  the  whole,  the  first  and  second  half  of 
Table  III  correspond  pretty  well  with  the  halves  of  the  table  that  gives 
the  record  of  average  positions  for  12.  14  shows  no  resemblance  to  12, 

occupying  the  twenty-sixth  position.  It  is,  however,  an  unformed  hand, 
while  12  is  a  highly  finished  one.  It  is  worth  noticing  that  two  of  the 
subjects  in  arranging  for  12  definitely  adopted  fluency  of  writing  as  the 
basis  for  the  arrangement. 

(C)  COLLECTION  II. 

This  collection  was  a  miscellaneous  one,  containing  five  groups.  No 
selection  of  material  was  made ;  the  envelopes  used,  with  three  exceptions, 
were  taken  at  random  from  the  correspondence  of  II.  4,  8.  and  10  were 
obtained  by  request,  and  did  not  pass  through  the  mails.  There  were 
fifteen  numbers  in  the  series. 

The  groups  were  composed  as  follows:  First  Group,  r(F),  5(]\I), 
7(]\I),  10(F),  brothers  and  sisters;  Second  Group,  mother  (13)  and  two 
daughters  (6,  9)  ;  Third  Group,  father  (12)  and  son  (3).;  Fourth  Group, 
father  (ii),  mother  (4),  son  (2),  and  daughter  (8)  ;  Fifth  Group,  father 
(15)  and  daughter  (14). 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  collection  contains  the  handwriting  of  eight 
women  and  seven  men.  Of  the  women  i,  8,  10,  and  14  are  teachers;  5(M) 
is  a  lawyer;  7  and  15  are  business  men;  ii  and  12  are  bookkeepers;  2  is 
a  college  instructor.  All  but  3,  a  boy  of  seventeen,  are  adults.  13  and  15 
are  elderly  persons. 


Family  Resemblance  in  Haniavkiting. 

Fifteen  different  arrangements  of  the  collection  were  made  by  each 
of  ten  subjects.  One  specimen  from  each  group  was  first  chosen  as  stand¬ 
ard  :  some  few  weeks  later  each  of  the  remaining  specimens  was  used  as 
standard.  In  the  second  test  three  new  subjects  took  the  place  of  three 
of  the  first- ten,  from  whom  it  was  impossible  to  obtain  the  second  series 
of  judgments.  The  subjects  were  not  familiar  with  the  hand-writing  that 
appeared  in  the  collection. 


RESULTS. 

The  results  for  the  first  group,  composed  of  i(F),  5(M),  /(IM).  and 
lo  (F),  are  given  in  Table  VIII. 


TABLE  VIII. 


standard  1 

standard  5 

Standarc 

I  7 

Standard  10 

Xo.  Order 

Position 

M.  V. 

Order 

Position 

M.  V. 

Order 

Position 

M.  V. 

Order 

Position!  M.  V. 

1 

10 

8.3 

2.70 

8 

7.7 

3.64 

13 

11.0  !  2.0 

5  14 

10.6 

2.f>8 

12 

9.3 

3..')0 

2 

3.9  '  2.68 

7  3 

1.8 

1.68 

7 

7.1 

2.34 

7 

0.6  3.04 

10  12 

10.2 

1.64 

3 

4.2 

2.48 

14 

in..7 

2.8 

From  the  table  it  appears  that  7  shows  some  resemblance  to  i,  10  to 
5  and  5  to  10,  the  closest  resemblance  found  being  that  of  5  to  ro.  i  and  5 
and  I  and  10  are  highly  dissimilar,  as,  in  a  slightly  less  degree,  are  7  and  5 
and  7  and  10.  (See  Plate  VI.) 

Each  pair  will  need  to  be  considered  separately.  From  the  average 
position  obtained  by  i  and  7  in  the  series  as  a  whole,  it  appears  that  i  is 
a  more  individual  hand  than  7.  7  resembles  many  hands  in  the  series,  as 

shown  by  the  fact  that  when  used  as  the  standard  for  comparison  there  is 
a  small  range  of  positions  and  high  mean  variations,  i  received  eighth  place. 
With  I  as  standard,  7  takes  third  place.  This  pair  shows,  then,  a  resem¬ 
blance,  but  not  a  striking  one. 

The  resemblance  between  5  and  10  is  more  noticeable.  With  5  as 
standard,  10  took  third  position,  averaged  from  the  following  positions: 
I,  I,  2,  2,  3,  4,  4,  5,  6,  14.  The  average  is  unduly  affected  by  the  14.  In 
fact,  10  was  selected  before  the  card  taking  second  place  six  out  of  ten 
times.  II,  which  took  first  position,  was  chosen  before  10  six  times.  With 
10  as  standard,  5  took  second  place  with  an  average  position  of  3.9.  The 
same  position  was  received  by  14  with  a  slightly  lower  varition,  which 
gives  it  the  first  position.  Actually,  however,  5  was  chosen  before  14 
six  out  of  ten  times  and  probably,  therefore,  deserves  the  first  position. 

The  relationship  for  5  and  10  and  for  i  and  7  is  brother-sister.  Of  the 
four  5  and  i  are  the  older;  10  and  7,  the  younger.  No  two  of  the  four 
had  the  same  teachers.  If  companionship  produces  similarly  in  handwrit¬ 
ing  the  likeness  should  be  found  between  that  of  i  and  5,  and  7  and  10.  It 
is  an  interesting  fact  in  this  connection  that  there  is  a  great  physical  resem¬ 
blance  between  5  and  10  and  between  i  and  7,  and  dissimilarity  between  i 
and  10,  5  and  7,  etc. 

An  inspection  of  the  cut  ( Plate  VI )  will  show  the  kind  of  resem¬ 
blance  that  exists  between  the  handwriting  of  the  two  pairs. 


Plate  \7. 


40 


Famii.v  Rkskmi’.lancic  in  Handwriting. 


The  results  for  the  second  group,  composed  of  13(F),  6(F),  and  9(F) 
are  given  in  Table  IX  : 


TABLE  IX. 


.standanl 

r>  1 

standard 

9 

Standard 

13 

No. 

Order 

I’ositioii 

M.  V. 

Order 

Position 

M.  V. 

Order 

Position 

M.  V. 

6 

2 

3.4 

1.6 

6 

7.0 

3.80 

9 

1 

4.4 

2.68 

8 

7.9 

3.72 

13 

9 

S.4 

2.88 

n 

9.4 

2.4 

There  is  no  evidence  of  a  resemblance  between  13  and  either  6  or  9, 
although  it  is  less  unlike  6  than  9.  6  and  9  show  a  resemblance. 

The  relationship  between  6  and  9  is  that  of  sisters.  The  resemblance 
in  their  handwritings  appears  to  be  found  in  tbe  formation  of  letters.  The 
texture  of  the  writing  is  very  dif¥erent  in  the  two  cases. 


Plate  VII. 


The  third  group  was  composed  of  3(M)  and  I2(M).  12  is  a  very 

individual  hand,  written  by  a  man  of  much  experience.  In  the  fifteen 
(lifTerent  arrangements  it  was  placed  in  the  last  position  six  times.  3  is  a 
more  colorless  hand,  or,  rather,  a  more  immature  hand,  written  by  a  boy 
of  seventeen.  At  first  glance  the  resemblance  between  these  two  hands 


Family  Reslmblance  in  Handwriting. 


41 


is  evident.  In  the  test  when  12  is  used  as  standard,  3  receives  the  second 
jilace  on  the  following  positions,  i,  i,  i,  i,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7;  average,  3.1 
(m.v.  1.92).  The  number  receiving  the  first  place  did  so  on  the  same 
average,  3.1,  but  with  a  mean  variation  of  1.3.  When  3  was  used  as  stand¬ 
ard,  the  average  position  assigned  12  gave  it  seventh  place.  This  average 
position  was  6.5,  with  a  mean  variation  of  5.2.  This  high  mean  variation 
shows  the  presence  of  some  disturbing  factor.  The  following  positions  were 
given  12:  I,  I,  I,  3,  3,  4,  12.  12,  14,  14.  The  conclusion  drawn  is  that  3 
resembles  12,  but  that  this  resemblance  is  masked  by  the  immaturity  of  3. 
The  relationship  is  that  of  father  and  son. 


The  fourth  group  was  composed  of  ii(Ar),  4(F),  2(M),  and  8(F). 
II  was  a  very  experienced  hand  ;  4,  an  unaccustomed  hand.  Table  X  below 
summarizes  the  results : 


TABLE  X. 


standard  2 

Standard  4 

Standard  8 

Standard  11 

No. 

Order 

Position 

M.  V. 

Order 

Position 

M.  V. 

Order  Position 

M.  V. 

Order 

Position 

M.  V. 

2 

6 

6.9 

2.92 

1  i  4.7 

2.56 

9 

8.8 

4.04 

4 

13 

10.8 

2.48 

5  '  (>.2 

2.48 

8 

7.6 

3.0 

8 

3 

6.3 

3.04 

2 

fi.O 

3.8 

11 

9.2 

1.60 

n 

9 

8.7 

3.02 

12 

8.6 

3.2 

14  11.0 

1.6 

4-’ 


Family  Resemulanck  in  Handwriting. 


There  is  evidence  of  a  resemblance  between  2  and  8  and  of  a  slight 
resemblance  between  4  and  8.  1 1  shows  no  resemblance  to  the  others.  How 
far  the  results  should  be  accepted  as  showing  a  likeness  between  4  and 
8  is  doubtful.  Although  8  receives  second  place  when  4  is  used  as  the 
standard,  the  range  of  positions  is  so  small  (seven  of  them  lie  between 
6.0  and  7.0)  that  the  result  is  of  little  value. 

2  and  8  are  brother  and  sister ;  the  age-difference  is  slight. 

The  fifth  group  consists  of  14(F)  and  15 (M).  When  14  was  used  as 
standard,  15  received  second  place,  with  an  average  position  of  5.6  (m.v. 
3.42)  ;  with  15  as  standard,  14  received  sixth  place  on  an  average  position 
of  6.7  (m.v.  2.5).  There  is  some  evidence  of  a  resemblance.  The  rela¬ 
tionship  is  that  of  father  and  daughter. 


Sunmiary.  The  relationships  for  which  a  resemblance  was  noticed 
were  the  following :  Brother-sister,  three  times  ;  sister-sister,  once  ;  mother- 
daughter,  possibly  once;  father-son,  once;  father-daughter,  once.  No  re¬ 
semblance  was  noted  in  the  following  cases  :  Brother-sister,  twice ;  sister- 
sister,  once ;  mother-daughter,  twice  ;  father-daughter,  once. 

The  question  may  be  raised  in  this  connection  of  the  effect  upon  resem¬ 
blance  of  similarity  in  sex  and  age.  That  the  sex-difference,  whether  due 
to  social  or  physiological  causes,  did  influence  results  somewhat  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  the  average  first  place  for  resemblance  was  ten  out  of 
fifteen  times  given  to  a  handwriting  by  one  of  the  same  sex  and  that  the 
same  thing  occurred  nine  out  of  fifteen  times  in  the  average  for  the  second 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


4.^; 


place.  A  resemblance  noticed  between  two  persons  of  an  opposite  sex 
must  then  be  strong  enough  to  overcome  this  difference.  Such  resemblances 
were  noticed  for  1-7,  5-10,  2-8,  14-15.  From  previous  tests  in  which  a  num¬ 
ber  of  persons  gave  judgments  upon  the  sex  of  handwriting,  I  know,  for 
instance,  that  14  is  a  distinctly  feminine  hand  and  15  a  distinctly  masculine 
hand.  A  resemblance  to  be  perceived  through  this  difference  is  probably 
worth  considering.  It  may  also  be  of  interest  to  know  that  i  and  7  are  both 
judged  to  he  masculine  hands  and  that  5  and  10  are  ambiguous  in  this  re¬ 
spect. 

The  age-factor  could  have  influenced  results  hut  little.  3  was  young 
(seventeen  years  old)  and  13  was  old  (over  seventy-five  years  in  age)  ;  the 
others  were  adults.  I  have  already  given  reasons  for  my  belief  that  the  imma¬ 
turity  of  3  affected  the  judgments.  It  is  possible  that  the  age  of  13  masked 
a  resemblance  to  6.  Practice  influences  handwriting  to  a  great  extent  and 
should  undoubtedly  be  considered.  It  is  possible  that  both  the  sex  and  age 
difference,  except  that  of  extreme  old  age,  are  reducible  to  a  certain  extent 
to  differences  in  ])ractice. 

(d)  collection  l. 

Collection  L  is  interesting  because  it  contains  the  handwriting  of  nine 
adult  brothers  and  sisters.  It  also  contains  two  specimens  of  the  hand¬ 
writing  of  children  whose  parents  were  first  cousins.  It  includes  twenty-one 
numbers,  as  follows:  i(F),  4(M),  5(F),  6(F),  7(F),  8(M).  12(F). 
i5(M),  i8(M),  brother.s- and  sisters;  io(M)  and  20(F),  son  and  daughter 
of  I  and  13:  16(F)  daughter  0(4;  i7(M)  son  of  one  of  the  above;  ig(M) 
son  of  12:  11(F)  and  27(F),  maternal  cousins  to  i,  etc.;  I3(M),  23(F)., 
and  26(F),  paternal  cousins  to  the  same  ;  25 (M  ),  paternal  uncle  tp  the  same 
and  father  of  26;  28(F)  daughter  of  27  and  therefore  first  cousin  once 
removed  to  i,  etc. 

The  following  standards,  were  chosen  as  representative:  i,  5,  ii,  13, 
20  and  23.  As  before,  ten  subjects  arranged  the  series  in  the  order  of  their 
likeness  to  the  given  standard.  10,  17,  19,  and  28  are  unformed  hands;  7 
is  a  stereotyped  hand. 

Table  XI  gives  the  average  results  with  the  mean  variations.  It 
reveals  some  remarkably  close  resemblances ;  for  example,  the  resemhlance 
between  4  and  20,  i  and  23.  13  and  8. 


TABLE  XI. 


Collection  L.  Position  averaged  from  Unit  given  by  10  subjects. 


1  Order  | 

standard  1 

Standard  5 

Standard  23 

Standard  11 

Standard  20  j 

Standard  13 

No. 

Posi¬ 

tion 

M.  V. 

No. 

Posi¬ 

tion 

M.  V. 

No. 

Posi¬ 

tion 

M.  V. 

No. 

Posi¬ 

tion 

M.  V. 

No 

Posi¬ 

tion 

M.  V. 

No 

Posi¬ 

tion 

M.V. 

1 

23 

2.4 

1.48 

12 

4.4 

2.88 

4 

4.3 

2.02 

18 

4.9 

2.28 

4 

1.9 

1.08 

8 

3.5 

4 

2 

4 

4.7 

1.9 

15 

5.3 

2.36 

12 

5.1 

2.. 58 

4 

5.3 

3.04 

26 

6.5 

4.3 

27 

6.5 

4.4 

3 

0 

5.0 

2.48 

4 

5.4 

2.88 

1 

5.4 

3.08 

12 

5.6 

3.48 

12 

0.6 

4.12 

1 

8.2 

4.82 

4 

20 

0.1 

2.9 

23 

5.5 

2.80 

() 

0.1 

2.7 

5 

5.7 

3.38 

15 

6.9 

3.48 

10 

8.9 

4.1 

r. 

15 

(1.4 

2.4 

11 

0.9 

2.7 

15 

0.9 

2.. 52 

23 

5.9 

2.72 

5 

7.1 

4.72 

25 

9.1 

5.72 

f) 

12 

0.5 

3.9 

20 

7 

3.2 

26 

7.6 

3.92 

6 

6 

3.0 

1 

7.3 

2.9 

5 

9.1 

6.22 

,  7 

20 

9.1 

4.12  1 

20 

8 

3.6 

5 

7.6 

4.48 

15 

7.2 

3.64 

23 

7.6 

2.2  1 

23 

9.2 

3.4 

8 

11 

9.3 

3.50 

0 

8.1 

3.52 

11 

8 

3 

26 

8.8 

3.40 

13 

9.4 

5.08 

20 

9.5 

3.5 

9 

8 

10.3 

3.30 

1 

8.8 

3.04 

20 

8.3 

2.5 

1 

9.4 

2.08 

11 

10.1 

5.12 

4 

9.6 

4.2 

10 

27 

10.5 

4.2 

18 

9.3 

3.3 

18 

9.3 

3.9 

20 

9.7 

3.3 

6 

10.2 

4.10 

18 

9.9 

4.68 

11 

18 

10.8 

4.00 

8 

10.9 

3.7 

16 

9.7 

3.02 

27 

10 

4 

27 

10.9 

3.32 

26 

10.2 

2.6 

12 

13 

11.3 

2.3 

10 

10.9 

4.1 

27 

11.7 

2.9 

10 

11.0 

3.92 

8 

11.3 

4.1 

6 

10.0 

3.48 

13  , 

5 

11.8 

3.08 

27 

n 

2.6 

8 

12.9 

4.52 

8 

12.5 

4 

16 

11.9 

4.1 

15 

11.1 

2.9 

14  1 

10 

14 

4.4 

13 

12.7 

3.82 

25 

13.1 

5.3 

13 

13.2 

2.24 

19 

13.0 

2.6  ‘ 

11 

11.2 

4.6 

15  , 

10 

14.3 

3.04 

7 

14.3 

4.04 

13 

13.9 

1.88 

19 

14.2 

2.12 

25 

13.8 

5.44 

17 

11.7 

4.76 

23 

14.3 

4.7 

25 

15.1 

4.46 

10 

15.3 

3.18 

25 

14.4 

4.04 

18 

14.2 

2.92 

12 

11.8 

4.8 

17 

19 

14.0 

1.8  ; 

19 

15.4 

1.96 

19 

15.5 

1.9 

10 

14.8 

3 

17 

14.7 

3.04 

10 

12.2 

4.30 

18  I 

17 

14.8 

2.48 

17 

15.9 

2.22 

17 

10.3 

2.04 

7 

10.1 

4.08 

10 

15 

2.8 

19 

12.0 

3.6 

19 

7 

10.4 

3.04 

10 

17.1 

2.1 

28 

10.4 

3.04 

28 

17.3 

1.9 

7 

15.4 

4.44 

28 

14.0 

2.88 

20  J 

1 

28 

10.8 

2.00 

28 

18 

1.8  1 

' 

16.6 

3.28 

17 

17.4 

3.92 

28 

15.6 

2.6 

" 

19.5 

.6 

44 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


AA'ith  20  as  standard.  4  received  the  following  positions;  i,  i,  i,  l, 
I.  I,  2.  2.  3,  6,  average  position  1.9.  4  and  20  are  doubly  related,  uncle- 
niece  and  cousin  once  removed.  (See  Plate  X.)  4  also  resembles  closely 
23  (paternal  cousin),  5  (sister),  and  i  (sister). 


Plate  X. 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


4.S 


When  I  was  used  as  standard,  23  was  assigned  the  following  positions : 
I,  I,  I,  I,  I,  2.  3.  3,  5,  6.  When  23  was  standard,  i  takes  the  third  place,  i 
and  23  are  paternal  cousins.  (See  Plate  XI. ) 


Plate  XL 


Family  Rlskmiilanck  in  Handwriting. 


4(1 


8  ranks  first  when  13  is  standard.-  It  received  the  following  po¬ 
sitions:  I.  I.  I.  I,  I.  I.  I.  I.  II.  16,  average  position  3.5.  The  first 

of  the  last  two  subjects,  who  disagreed  so  strangely  with  the  majority, 
when  asked  some  weeks  later  to  arrange  the  cards  according  to  their 
likeness  to  i  ^  advanced  8  to  the  sixth  position.  1 3  and  8  are  paternal  cousins. 
(Plate  XTI.) 


•fix  axvid 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


47 


With  5  as  standard  the  first  place  was  given  to  12  (sister)  on  an  average 
received  from  the  following  assigned  positions:  i,  i,  i,  2,  3,  4,  5,  5, 
9,  13.  12  also  resembles  23  (paternal  cousin).  (Plate  XIII.) 


Plate  XIII. 


48 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


i8  is  most  like  ii  (maternal  cousin).  The  positions  assigned  it  were 
2.  2.  3.  3.  4.  4.  5,  6,  9,  II  ;  average.  4.  9.  (Plate  XIV. ) 


7L.  n 


Plate  XIV. 


The  point  of  interest  is  the  frequency  with  which  a  similarity  occurs 
in  the  handwriting  of  persons  related  in  the  second  or  third  degree.  20 
and  4,  which  gave  the  closest  resemblance,  are  unlike  in  age  and  opposite 
in  sex,  facts  which  make  the  resemblance  of  greater  significance. 

Several  subjects  who  worked  with  Collection  L  made  the  statement 
that  it  was  very  easy  to  separate  the  cards  into  several  groups,  but  difficult 
to  place  the  cards  within  these  groups.  The  averaged  results  show  the 
effects  of  such  grouping.  A  study  of  the  table  seems  to  justify  the  fol¬ 
lowing  grouping:  i,  4,  6,  15,  23,  20,  26;  12,  5,  7,  and  possibly  ii  and 
18;  8,  13,  and  possibly  25  and  16.  10,  17,  19.  28  fall  out  of  the  series; 
they  are  too  unformed  to  furnish  a  basis  for  judgment.  27  seems  also 
to  fall  out  of  the  series.  7  is  placed  with  12  and  5  because  its  position 
is  advanced  several  grades  when  5  is  selected  as  standard.  It  is  questionable 
whether  ii  and  18  should  also  be  placed  in  this  group.  But  a  transition 
from  the  first  group  to  ii  and  18  can  be  made  through  12  and  5. 

The  possibility  of  such  a  grouping  is  of  great  importance.  It  is  just 
such  a  separation  into  groups  that  the  analytical  method  of  study  of 
inheritance  would  demand  as  preliminary  to  a  determination  of  unit  char¬ 
acters.  A  more  complete  record  would  be  needed  before  one  could  draw 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


49 


any  definite  conclusions  from  the  present  grouping.  But  it  is  interesting 
to  note  the  indications,  among  these  nine  brothers  and  sisters,  of  the 
existence  of  two  writing-types  on  the  paternal  side,  one  on  the  maternal, 
and  a  fourth  type  that  seems  transitional. 


IV.  GENERAL  CONCLUSION. 

The  experiment  herein  reported  is,  as  the  title  indicates,  strictly  a  pre¬ 
liminary  study.  It  has  only  suggestive  value.  For  this  reason  no  elaborate 
manipulation  of  returns  has  been  attempted. 

It  shows  that  a  judgment  on  resemblance  in  handwriting  is,  to  a  high 
degree,  subjective  and  that,  consequently,  an  unsupported  judgment  is  of 
little  value.  At  times,  however,  a  resemblance  may  be  so  strong  as  to  over¬ 
balance  this  subjectivity.  In  general,  a  judgment  of  unlikeness  is  made  with 
greater  ease  than  one  of  likeness. 

In  view  of  the  subjectivity  of  this  judgment,  it  is  desirable  that  some 
objective  criterion  be  established  for  the  measurement  of  the  so-called 
“character”  of  handwriting.  The^ests  gave,  however,  no  satisfactory  con¬ 
clusions  as  to  what  constituted  character  or  individuality  in  handwriting. 
Many  details  were  found  to  be  influential,  such  as  slant,  pressure,  forma¬ 
tion  of  letters,  size,  and  texture,  but  beyond  these  there  was  something 
not  always  determinable  and  called  “general  appearance.”  Careful  measure¬ 
ments  must  in  time  analyze  this  general  appearance  if  progress  is  to  be  made. 

The  use  of  letter-superscriptions  as  the  material  on  which  judgments 
are  passed  is  convenient  but  subject  to  criticism  in  that  the  material  is 
scanty  and  the  writing  of  an  address  apt  to  be  unduly  formal.  So  much 
must  be  granted.  In  a  complete  investigation  an  examination  of  one  or 
more  manuscripts  should  supplement  such  observation  as  is  described  above. 

It  has  been  seen  that  age  influences  writing  to  a  great  extent.  The 
writing  of  the  very  young  and  of  the  very  old  is  easily  selected.  The 
results  of  the  present  test  show'  that  the  writing  of  children  can  hardly 
be  compared  with  that  of  adults.  Sometimes,  it  is  true,  very  interesting 
resemblances  came  out,  but  frequently  the  hand  is  too  uncertain  or  too 
conventional  to  be  worth  consideration.  The  writing  of  some  young  people, 
however,  sets  at  an  early  age.  This  in  itself  seems  to  be  a  family  charac¬ 
teristic  of  some  importance.  I  have  one  family  collection  in  which  the 
hand  of  at  least  three  of  the  five  children  is  distinctly  formed  at  the  age 
of  thirteen;  the  hand  of  one  has  show'ii  no  variation  for  fifteen  years.  In 
other  families  the  handw'riting  is  not  formed  until  after  tw'enty.  When 
the  handw'riting  of  very  old  people  is  used  in  a  comparison  w'ith  that  of 
others,  the  observation  should,  if  possible,  be  checked  by  reference  to 
earlier  work. 

Difference  in  sex  undoubtedly  introduces  a  difference  in  handwriting, 
particularly  in  youth,  at  which  time  the  girl’s  writing  is  strongly  conven¬ 
tional,  a  conventionality  which  persists  unless  overcome  by  the  habit  of 
much  writing,  or  by  the  advance  of  age.  Although  a  resemblance  between 
two  handwritings  may  be  masked  by  the  sex  difference,  a  resemblance 
in  handw'riting  betw'een  two  who  are  opjiosite  in  sex  may  be  so  great  as 
to  overcome  this  difference. 

The  most  important  conclusions  from  the  study  may  be  briefly  sum¬ 
marized  as  follows  :  ( i )  A  very  striking  resemblance  often  exists  between 

the  handwriting  of  clifferent  members  of  the  same  family.  (2)  This 
resemblance  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  the  ground  of  similarity  in  ed¬ 
ucational  and  social  influences  for  it  is  frequently  found  in  the  case  of 
relatives  who  have  had  different  training,  been  under  different  environmental 
conditions,  are  very  different  in  age  and  unlike  in  sex.  (3)  .A  resemblance 


Family  Resemllanck  in  Handwriting. 


51^ 


may  exist  between  tlie  hands  of  persons  related  in  the  second  and  third 
degree,  who  have  not  been  brought  up  under  similar  conditions.  The 
present  test  brought  to  light  resemblances  between  the  handwriting  of 
annt  and  nephew,  uncle  and  niece,  grandfather  and  grandson,  and- cousins. 
(4)  A  fraternal  resemblance  is  frequently  found  and  also,  perhaps  less 
frequently,  a  resemblance  between  the  handwriting  of  child  and  parent. 
But  there  was  no  evidence  that  sons  write,  like  their  fathers  exclusively 
and  daughters  like  their  mothers,  except  in  so  far  as  a  family  resemblance 
is  cut  hv  a  sex-likeness.  (5)  There  was  strong  indication  of  the  appearance 
in  families  of  definite  handwriting  types,  between  which  there  might  be 
great  dissimilarity. 

The  most  suggestive  conclusion  is  that  which  points,  to  the  existence 
of  different  types  of  writing  in  one  family.  A  priori,  one  might  expect 
the  writing-act  to  he  too  complex  to  lend  itself  to  an  analysis  into  segre¬ 
gated  characters.  The  elaborate  physical  mechanism  involved  in  the  act 
and  the  complicated  mental  control  make  us  pause.  And'  yet  we  have 
here  some  evidence  that  such  an  analysis  may  be  possible.  It  would  be 
strange  if  a  study  of  family  resemblance  in  handwriting  should  effect  a 
more  significant  analysis  of  the  writing-act  than  we  possess  today.  The 
desideratum  in  such  a  study  would  be  complete  samples  of  the  writing  of, 
the  adult  members  of  a  family  through  four  or  five  generations. 


Family  Resemblance  in  Handwriting. 


REFERENCES. 

1.  I’ateson,  W.  Mendel's  Principles  of  Heredity.  (1909.) 

2.  Bentley,  I.  M.  The  Psychology  of  Organic  Movements.  Am.  Jour. 

of  Psychol.,  XVII.  (1906.) 

3.  Binet,  A.  Les  rdvi^lations  de  I’dcriture  d'  apres  un  controle  scientificiue. 

( 1906. ) 

4.  Carpenter,  W.  B.  Mental  Physiology. 

5.  Darwin,  Ch.  Variation  of  Animals  and  Plants  Under  Domestication. 

6.  Dearborn,  V.  N.  Notes  on  the  Discernment  of  Likeness  and  of  Lhi- 

likeness.  Jour,  of  Phil.,  Psychol,  and  Scientific  IMethods,  VI I . 
(1910.)  . 

7.  Downey,  J.  E..  Control  Processes  in  Modified  Handwriting.  Psychol. 

Rev.  Mon.  Sup.  No.  37.  (1908.) 

8.  Galton,  F.  Hereditary  Genius;  .4n  Inquiry  Into  Its  Laws  and  Con¬ 

sequences. 

9.  -  Inquiries  Into  Human  Faculty.  (1883.) 

10.  -  Natural  Inheritance.  (1889.) 

11.  Gessell,  A.  L.  .Accuracy  in  Handwriting  as  Related  to  School  In¬ 

telligence  and  Sex.  Am.  Jour,  of  Psychol.,  XVII.  (  1906.) 

12.  Grant,  A.  H.  The  Grant  Family  History.  (1898.) 

13.  Hurst,  C.  C.  Mendel's  Law  of  Heredity  and  Its  Application  to  Man. 

Leicester  Lit.  Phil.  Soc.  Trans.,  XH.  ( 1908.) 

14.  Mitchell,  C.  N.  The  Making  of  Handwriting.  Knowledge  and  Sci¬ 

entific  News,  Vk  (1908.) 

15.  Pear.son,  K.  On  the  Inheritance  of  Mental  and  Moral  Characters  in 

Man  and  Its  Comparison  with  the  Inheritance  of  the  Physical 
Characters.  Jour.  .A.nthrop.  Institute,  XXXHI.  (1903.) 

16.  Ribot,  Th.  Heredity:  .V  Psychological  Study  of  Its  I’henoniena,  Laws. 

Causes  and  Consequences.  (Eng.  Trans.  N.  Y.  1898.) 

17.  Royce,  J.  The  Psychology  of  Invention.  Psychol.  Rev.,  V.  (1898.) 

18.  Spearman.  C.  The  Proof  and  Measurement  of  .\ssociation  Between 

Two  Things.  Am.  Jour,  of  Psychol.,  X\k  (1904.) 

19.  Thorndike,  E.  L.  Measurement  of  Twins,  .\rchiv.  of  Phil.,  Psychol. 

and  Scientific  Methods,  No.  1.  (1905.) 

20.  Wells,  F.  L.  On  the  Variability  of  Individual  Judgment.  Essays 

Philosophical  and  Psychological.  (  1908.) 

21.  Woods,  F.  A.  Heredity  in  Royalty.  (1906.) 


j  GAYLAMOUNT  I 

•  I  PAMPHLET  BINDER  ' 

-  I  I  . 

I  Menuf octurwd  by  >  "■' 
1  GAYLORD  BROS.  Inc.  [ 

I  SyrocuM,  N.Y.  i  ' 

I  Stockton.  Calif.  i 

1^1  .1 


